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

Badri. Good afternoon. Thank you for responding. Please. Consider my conclusion. On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 15:41:30 +0530 Badri Sunderarajan <badrihippo(a)disroot.org> wrote: 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. 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/2025-0… 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. Best, Schimon