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

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: 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... 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? 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, 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