29 Apr
2026
29 Apr
'26
6:27 p.m.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 at 17:48, Dave Cridland <dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
I don't especially have time right now (I literally have a child
pulling my arm as I type this). However I can dig up the relevant
links from the summit notes and post a new thread about GC3 shortly (I
don't particularly want to hijack this thread, which is probably best
reserved for feedback on the submission itself).
Regards,
Matthew
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 at 15:20, Matthew Wild
<mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think this is a pointless debate because the line can be drawn
wherever someone wants it to be drawn, and you've demonstrated it can
be taken to extremes. I would argue that your classification of GC3 as
not an XSF activity was taking it to the opposite extreme.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 at 14:31, Dave Cridland <dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
I don't think that's the right definition of an XSF activity, is it?
By that set of metrics, other XSF activities include Modern XMPP and the Jabber.org XMPP
service. In fact, that even suggests Prosody is an XSF activity, doesn't it? Clearly
that cannot be the case. As far as I know, GC3 has no published
specification and is not an XSF activity; I've avoided that name to (hopefully) avoid
confusion with it.
Okay, I'll take the bait... :)
Apart from being hashed out by multiple XSF members, including at a
sprint, and presented and discussed at an XSF summit...
An XSF activity has various factors attached, most
notably the Code of Conduct and the IPR Policy - the latter includes copyright assignment
as well as change control - and ultimate control by the membership (usually via the Board
or Council). The Summits are an XSF Activity, but they often discuss things that are not
(this year, the IETF work for example). Meanwhile, our XEPs are often submitted and worked
on by people who aren't XSF members, and the code worked on at Sprints is certainly
not owned by the XSF. So I think your definition is flawed on every count.
I don't see how the IPR policy is relevant in determining whether
something is an XSF activity - it applies to documents entered into
the standards process, but I think anyone would reasonably agree the
XSF has activities beyond that (including discussion and collaboration
on documents prior to their initial submission).
This ProtoXEP is offered to the XSF, no strings
attached, with copyright assigned to the XSF and change control surrendered as per
XEP-0001 upon publication. That's definitely an XSF activity, I think we can agree.
I don't know... you as an individual just submitted it without (as far
as I know) any of the XSF being involved at all.
And I do think this is extremely important. A newcomer
to the XSF would be entirely unaware of GC3 except in occasional passing references, and
would be unable to participate. I'm only aware of it at all because I happened to make
the 2025 Summit, and I'm not exactly a newcomer. That's not how an Open Standards
organisation should work, surely?
I agree, it would be hard for a newcomer to discover. But if they are
interested in a MUC successor, ideally they would say so and people
could help them out. Ideally they wouldn't just invent a group chat
protocol and submit it without researching existing efforts or
bringing it up at a summit.
I get the impression that you think GC3 is some specification that is
being withheld from the XSF standards process. The only reason "the
GC3 XEP" hasn't been submitted is because it doesn't exist. To make it
exist, someone needs to collate the notes from the discussions at the
sprint, summit and online and write it up in XEP syntax. There are
still some unsolved questions about the approach (but, from a skim,
probably fewer than the document you have submitted).
Personally I'm not a fan of submitting unimplemented/unimplementable
protocols (I've fixed up so many "TODO"-ridden XEPs in recent years),
and that's partly why I haven't prioritized this work above getting
some basic prototype code to prove it out a bit. But I'm not saying a
XEP absolutely cannot come first, just explaining my personal time
prioritization. If someone wants to help with the XEP side of things,
I'm not going to complain.
No, I'm not ignoring anything, I'm simply
unaware of them. Please do post them to the list, I'd welcome the discussion. If I
don't respond, *then* you can tell me I'm ignoring them. The only thing I remember
from the GC3 presentation at the 2025 Summit was the addressing, and I think I captured
that.
I have some bandwidth available. If I get busy,
there's a large number of very clever people on the mailing list who can take over and
probably do a better job then I can - and you're certainly included in that. Honestly,
everyone should be hoping I get busy.
I'd have liked to say the same about the GC3 work, but the clever
people are preferring to start their own thing from scratch :)
But if you're saying that I should not have
submitted a ProtoXEP because of GC3, or that everyone should ignore this because of GC3,
then I must disagree very strongly indeed.
I'm not saying that at all. I don't think any unrealized XEP (such as
GC3) should prevent someone from submitting an actual XEP. That would
hinder progress and wouldn't be good for anyone.
However, progress is also hindered if work is done in the community
and then completely ignored.
So to answer
Nicolas's question: they seem, needlessly, to be
different things at the moment.
Please do take the time to explain why, and why your approach is better.