[Standards] Re: Participation of civil society in the standardization process + Last Calls

Good evening. I would want to increase the extent of this concern, and focus more on people and less on developers and other "technical" people. I am more inclined to advocate for more accessibility and freedom. Bad influence ------------- I am against condescending terms such as "civil society"; as such terms are designed to influlence people to silently legitimize concerns that otherwise would not be legitimized by them. One is said to be of a group of "civil society", and that term influences him to have some effortless pride, by supposedly being of "civil society". If someone from Afghanistan or Antartica, or China has a good idea, then I would listen to him; and I care not whether he is red, white, black, yellow, blond, or redhead. I, for instance, am a jew of an "enlightened" (whatever that should mean) and "democratic" society in the middle east; even though the population registry has over a million of non-existing people (for election purposes); even though it has no constitution and individual rights have no protection; even though it denies damages by presenting itself as a victim and thereby stifles any discussion; even though it commits a well documented genocide of half a century against the Palestinian people. The society of which I am a part of, for over twenty years, is anything but that which it describes itself, and many of my friends think so too. Hence, I sense, that unnecessary regulations would only harm and confuse us. Stating that the damage be *significant* be an understatement, and the damages would certainly be immense and difficult to measure. Regulation ---------- Regulation is something good, only when it is necessary; and, is almost always bad when it is unnecessary. Censorship ---------- Useless regulations are often made to have concealed censorship mechanisms that are masqueraded as helpful procedures. During the last year of 2025, that organization which you mentioned (starting with "W") and organization which is related to it, have censored, in the name of their "benevolent" (useless) regulations, many comments and criticism against the removal of XSLT. That regulation was abused to censor; or, I should state, that they were used as they were meant to be used, to censor. Censorship masqueraded by friendliness. Access ------ I recall, over a decade ago, a friend who was a participant of a group chat called "yaypew", who discussed several times about a"lobby" group chat which is forked into several group chats; and interestingly XEP-0503 is reminiscing his description. XMPP could have been there before everyone else, if the access was easier, to more kinds of people. The problem, and trouble, of the XMPP people is the lack of access of more kinds of people, who may be even literature teachers, lawyers, gardeners, farmers, and even bureaucrats. Increasing of accessibility would consequently increase the participation and helpful ideas. However, all mailing-lists were closed, and now there is only a mailing-list of "standards" which does not even fit to me, an XMPP software developer. Interestingly, the mailing-list of "jdev" was closed for inactivity, even though the activity increased, and, ironically, the recent discussions were about increasing accessibility. Conclusion ---------- I advise to refrain from regulations, and contrived terms; and to increase access to the public. Otherwise, XMPP would be left behind, instead of leading the internet as I deem that it should. Once we allow to the public to guide us, the better we would serve the pubblic and XMPP. I am a lawyer; yet, today, I develop XMPP software full-time, and that is because I allowed to my clients, especialy my first ones, to guide my efforts, instead of myself being authoritative against them. Post script ----------- The recent fake event, which was amazing to tell, about sabotaging a whites-only internet site, which I deem to be a fake event, was probably a campaign to incite hatred intsead of discussion and dialogue, and also to legitimize criminal and offensive behaviour against white. I deem that even as a fake event, because I, as a lawyer of over a decade, am well aware that one would be subjected to severe lawsuits for committing such offences. So, other than this event being fake, it has another consequence to encourage hatred, and therefore I deem that mentioned organization (starting with "C") as untrustworthy. Of note ------- I repeat, the things that we need are accessible and open dialogues and discussions, and to extend them to more people, beyond you and me. I write this message out of respect and care; and if someone is inconvenient about anuy of my statements, that are mostly about my own life and society, I request to refer to me in a polite manner; otherwise, I will ignore your comments. Thank you, Schimon On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 16:22:31 +0100 Daniel Gultsch <daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote: https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-who-runs-the-www-wsis20-and-the-future-of-inter… _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org