[Standards] Re: [Board] Board meeting info + voting

- IANAL, but the use of any of the XSF materials is covered by our IPR statement and I believe that explicitly allows any such use as training LLMs. I don't see this as a negative for the XSF. This doesn't negate concerns for *other* organizations or projects. I understand that given the licensing, LLM training may be permissible. That wasn't the point. As an org, and personally, I do not want to contribute to a technology largely designed to destroy my profession. Unfortunately, a number of projects I care about are still hosted on platform owned by one of the biggest developers of LLM tech. You mentioned before that contributors are free to mirror XSF/XMPP repos on other platforms. This sounds like a good first contribution for our org. I'm willing to put in the work to mirror the repos, and try to coordinate any issue triage that gets submitted on the mirrors. - It is very demotivating for people working on this to get side line opinions without actual ongoing involvement. Apologies if this sounded like sidelining, that wasn't my intention. I was giving voice from my perspective on why I​​ am demotivated from contributing to projects hosted on Github, and offered some viable alternatives. - I will not go into my personal opinions on political, societal, or ethical choices or opinions, by anyone or any corporation, here. I do have them, as many here can attest, and they usually go with a beverage in a private, in-person setting. Right, because FOSS, decentralized communication platforms are completely apolitical, and detached from society. There's obviously no ethical considerations, either. Mind backdooring OMEMO for any government that asks?

On Wednesday, August 27th, 2025 at 8:51 PM, Ralph Meijer <ralphm(a)ik.nu> wrote: > Hi Elle, > > My main point remains that I'd rather have the XSF spend time on > improving XMPP itself rather than bikeshed on tooling every once in > a while. It is very demotivating for people working on this to get > side line opinions without actual ongoing involvement. > > IANAL, but the use of any of the XSF materials is covered by our > IPR statement and I believe that explicitly allows any such use as > training LLMs. I don't see this as a negative for the XSF. This > doesn't negate concerns for *other* organizations or projects. > > I will not go into my personal opinions on political, societal, or > ethical choices or opinions, by anyone or any corporation, here. I > do have them, as many here can attest, and they usually go with a > beverage in a private, in-person setting. I also do not believe > that the XSF should take positions or make statements and will make > every effort to keep it that way. > > Cheers, > > ralphm > > On 27 August 2025 22:32:10 CEST, Elle > <elle+xmpp-standards(a)weathered-steel.dev> wrote: >> Hi Ralph, >> >> I'm not sure to what extent you're using Github's tooling, but the >> CI config for Woodpecker is very close to Github's CI. >> >> I understand the effort in retooling is non-trivial, but Github is >> becoming increasingly hostile to FOSS projects. They are very >> close to forcing use of AI on hosted projects, and of course their >> AI already scrapes all existing hosted projects. With no way to >> reasonably opt-out. >> >> Plus you know, Microsoft actively supporting the genocide in Gaza. >> >> On Wednesday, August 27th, 2025 at 8:16 PM, Ralph Meijer >> <ralphm(a)ik.nu> wrote: >>> On 27/08/2025 12.55, Florian Schmaus wrote: >>> >>>> [CC'ing standards@, as I'd like to engage the community >>>> regarding our >>>> >>>> usage of Github] >>>> >>>> On 07/08/2025 18.50, E.M. wrote: >>>> >>>>> [..] >>>>> >>>>> * XEP-0001 and 0143 changes need approval from Board >>>>> >>>>> ** Call to provide you input to the changes and place a comment >>>>> or >>>>> >>>>> review. >>>>> >>>>> Link 1: >>>>> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1412 >>>> >>>> This contains some good changes, like the advise to read, >>>> understand, >>>> >>>> and agree to our IPR. However, I find the the strong emphasis on >>>> >>>> Github PRs very problematic. Especially the part where we tell >>>> people >>>> >>>> that if they don't have a github account and are not willing to >>>> sign >>>> >>>> up for one, they should find someone who has one. >>>> >>>> The XSF should not require the usage of a propriety service for >>>> >>>> contributions. >>>> >>>> On the other side, I do acknowledge that using a CI-based system >>>> for >>>> >>>> contributions has its advantage. Therefore, a change which >>>> mentions >>>> >>>> that we also accept contributions via Github, outlining the >>>> existence >>>> >>>> of a CI there, would be acceptable to me. >>>> >>>> But it is my strong believe that we should always accept >>>> contributions >>>> >>>> via mail. >>>> >>>> Therefore -1, as is. >>>> >>>> On a side note: We may also want to point out that it is >>>> possible to >>>> >>>> validate changes locally. And we probably should look into >>>> codeforge >>>> >>>> alternatives. But that is outside of the scope of this PR. >>> >>> We have discussed this at various occasions in the past. The >>> outcome was >>> >>> that we need to make technology choices and create and maintain >>> tooling >>> >>> to maintain the processes of the XSF. A choice was made, after >>> >>> consulting the Infrastructure Team and the XMPP Council, to >>> (continue >>> >>> to) use GitHub and associated tooling. Reasons for doing it this >>> way is >>> >>> familiarity with the tooling, minimizing maintenance, and low >>> appetite >>> >>> for retooling. >>> >>> The XSF is an organization that entirely depends on volunteers to >>> do >>> >>> anything. It is already hard to get our core functions staffed and >>> >>> actually have work done. The effort required for retooling and >>> >>> subsequent maintenance is better spent on progressing on our core >>> >>> functions. >>> >>> I also do not agree the XSF cannot use proprietary services. The >>> XSF is >>> >>> an open standards organization for the entire XMPP community which >>> >>> includes projects and contributors in the Free Software and/or >>> Open >>> >>> Source Software communities (take your preferred one), as well as >>> closed >>> >>> source and everything in between. Commercial companies and >>> >>> non-commercial entities alike. There is no inherent or implied >>> leaning >>> >>> to any choice made here, nor is there a need for a preference. >>> >>> The changes (including the one below) simply outline the current >>> >>> process, with XEP-0001 deferring to XEP-0143 for the details. >>> XEP-0143 >>> >>> clearly provides a way to provide changes or initial contributions >>> >>> without using GitHub, and people are free to clone our repos to >>> >>> facilitate people to interact more directly with Git without >>> GitHub. >>>>> Link 2: >>>>> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1407 >>>> >>>> +1, thanks for writing this. >>> >>> I reviewed and approved both PRs. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ralph Meijer >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org >>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.or