Badri. Good afternoon.

Thank you for responding.

Please. Consider my conclusion.

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 15:41:30 +0530
Badri Sunderarajan <badrihippo@disroot.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> There's a lot happening in this thread, but I do like the general
> direction in which this is going. I have read the entire thread,
> though not watched the talk yet (I'm actually planning to listen to
> the audio, since watching videos for a long time tends to tire me
> more; I hope that doesn't cause me to miss out anything too
> important).
>
> Going back to Daniel's original idea:
>
> > This leads me to a question: Can we kill two or three birds with one
> > stone here? Can we either rephrase some of the questions in the Last
> > Call or add new ones that explicitly invite feedback from "civil
> > society" (for lack of a better word)?
> >
> > I just want to get the discussion started, so I don’t have a final
> > list, but the questions could go in a direction like this:
> >
> > * Would you use this feature if it were implemented in the XMPP
> > client you currently use?
> > * Do you think an implementation of this feature could negatively
> > impact your community?
> > * Does this improve (make easier) the work you do in your
> > community? 
>
> I think these are questions that would certainly encourage more
> participation among people who are following the list without
> participating. (How to get more people reading them is a different
> matter).
>
> Personally, despite being an XSF member and also the developer of an
> XMPP client, I feel something of an impostor syndrome commenting on
> standards thinking that maybe I'm not well-versed enough. Strangely,
> I don't feel the same way about asking questions on the jdev MUC.
> This might be some kind of vicious cycle where only the most engaged
> people (and therefore the ones most well-versed in the technical
> internals) end up replying on the list, leading people to think that
> they have to be similarly well-versed, and therefore keeping silent
> while only well-versed people reply...
>

Thank you for writing this.

I think, that your statement may also be used to support my approach,
that there are already too many regulative layers in this XSF forum, be
these regulations optional or compulsory; these regulations distance
XMPP from more humans; and, humans, are those which, I think, that XMPP
was intended to serve.

> One way to break out of this could be to make it clear that more
> basic questions along the lines of "Will this XEP let me X in my
> client?" or even "How exactly is this XEP going to be used?" are also
> welcome. Some very rough ideas are:
>
>   * Do you have any questions about how this XEP could be used in
> practice?
>   * Is there a feature you would like to see that you think this XEP
>     could help with?
>
> And maybe a comment like "This XEP is a technical specification, but
> general non-technical discussion about how it would work are also
> welcome". If we have a template like this, it could be included at
> the bottom whenever a new XEP is announced on the list (we don't have
> to wait for the Last Call!)
>
> Regarding Schimon's reservations about the term "civil society", I am
> okay with choosing some other term that doesn't have the connotations
> described. I think the main aim is to find a word that means "anybody
> at all who might use XMPP, not just tech people". So let's try to
> brainstorm some ideas for that?
>

The term itself is a term. It is not a problem.

The problem is titling something. The problem is a jargon.

I sense, that the word "inclusive" is a code-word to exclude people,
and what that title does, is inciting us against each other, be it
indians against white, whites against latinos, jews against muslims, et
cetera.


Example
-------

This is a perfect example of how "inclusiveness" is being subverted.

https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/woodpeckersnest.space/~schapps/journal/2025-02-07-the-conspiracy-against-free-software-and-telecommunication.gmi

Mr. Esmail EL BoB, A Muslim Arab man, who I conversed many times, and
who is a very good man, even though he thinks many bad things about my
own society.

However, he did nothing wrong, and he was harmed, and also everyone
else who advocate for freedom to humans.


Of note
-------

The actual term should be "common denominator", "cooperation",
"freedom" et cetera, to which we do not need to have a jargon.

We only need to communicate. This is not something to even think about.


Experience
----------

Pleaes. Do not mock me. I used to be very weird in the past.

I did not curse nor insulted anybody. I was somewhat impolite.

I do recall stating a curse at someone of "AradiRadio" (part of
AradiTracker), and I was asked by the chat administrator to behave.

Now, I remember myself at the age of 19, when I first learned English
on my own (not that school), by participating in digital activities of
my interest; and I was a TERRIBLE communicator, using weird words, and
having a bad attitude, at sites such as Userscripts.or, Userstyle.org,
and The Portable Freeware Collection.

Nevertheless, the more I FREELY conversed and argued with people,
without those contrived regulations, at which I misbehaved, then
gradually I BALANCED and improved my attitude; and every once or twice,
of every year, for a decade I read my past comments of last year or
years, and wondered how significantly terrible I was; and at later
years I wondered how improved I was in contract to the past.


To conclude
-----------

If the unnecessary document CoC (did you notice the sound of it?) and
the contrived doctrine of "inclusiveness" were introduced when I was
19, then I probably would not be involved with XMPP, not even FFree
Software, and I would be utilizing proprietary operating systems.


Final notes
-----------

XMPP should be more free, more open to everyone.

We do not have to have all the activities at a single hub.

My intenton is not to overwhelm us.

We can have obvious references over xmpp.or to direct people to
relevant communities.

For instance, project postmarketOS has tens of IRC channels, each
dedicated to that which is relevant to a particular niche; and so we
should do with XMPP.

We need to increase activity, engagement, and curiousity of the public.

Afterwards, a discussion of more regulations, compulsory or optional,
might be needed, and to which I will probably still be against.


Post script
-----------

I will still be against, because those couple of standard entities
which Daniel has referred to are not open. They are closed, and are
blatantly infested with infiltrators.

I therefore, do not want XMPP to also be closed, as more regulations
would retract from the public, and would make XMPP subjected to
sabotagers (i.e. moles) and infiltrators that would prevent progress.

An infiltration, of sort, actually happened with three prominent
members of XSF; yet, I will not mention it in this mailing-list,
because it will not be respectful.

We must not have more of it, if we do not want XMPP to lose its
relevancy.

> I don't know the background behind the whole mailing list thing, but
> if it'll help reduce the barrier for people to post I can volunteer
> to reply with a few silly (or not) questions on the XEPs that come
> into this list ;-)
>
> Finally, in response to Dave's proposed questions,
>
> > Would it also be helpful to have a survey to find out why people
> > don't engage in Last Calls, why they wouldn't stand for Council,
> > and why they join (or don't join) the XSF? 
>
> This sounds like a good idea too! If there are people with "impostor
> syndrome" like me, even posing the question could encourage them by
> letting them know that we /do/ want them to engage/stand/join.
> Through hanging out at various XSF MUCs, I've seen the sentiment
> passed around once in a while about wishing there was participation
> beyond just tech people (or often more narrowly just spec people!)
> but that's not something one can pick up by just browsing the XSF
> website a few times.
>
> Personally, the vague plan in my head was to start following the XEPs
> more closely first and then thinking of standing for Council. I'm not
> sure if that's how it's supposed to work. For Council specifically, a
> question that comes to mind is: since it's meant to be a vetting of
> the technical specifications, does it require people to be able to
> read and digest the entire spec? If so, that would require people on
> the Council to be at least somewhat comfortable with
> tech/programming. Or perhaps we are okay with Council members who go
> by discussing the functionality with others in the community and vote
> based on what they learn there? If the latter, that sounds like
> something which should be spelled out somewhere because by reading
> the lists today I'd assume it was the former.
>
> I think I'm starting to ramble so I will stop here :-)
>
> Looking forward to hearing what others think. And FWIW if it comes to
> a "figuring out what questions to ask and how to phrase them" session
> I'm willing to help with that!
>
> Best,
> Badri

Best,
Schimon