Good Morning Council Members, the next XMPP Council Meeting will take place on, Tuesday, August 25 2026 at 15:30 UTC in xmpp:council@muc.xmpp.org?join The Agenda is as follows: 1) Roll call 2) Agenda Bashing 3) Editors update • UPDATED: XEP-0066 (Out of Band Data) https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html • UPDATED: XEP-0515 (TLS Channel-Binding Downgrade Protection) https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0515.html • NEW: XEP-0518 (Payment Required) https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0518.html 4) Items for voting a) XEP-0143: Add author responsibility to submission process https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1552 b) XEP-0490: Add security consideration for sender verification of PEP notifications https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1554 c) XEP-0134: Add guideline against context-dependent elements https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1558 d) XEP-0084: Fix example with both pubsub and HTTP source https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1559 5) Pending votes none See the spreadsheet of doom: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14gy_nhuTnqlktakJfLZ2Mc-jblSaG0na0KhG... 6) Date of Next 7) AOB 8) Close
Hi, Le mardi 25 août 2026, 11:46:15 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Daniel Gultsch a écrit :
[SNIP] a) XEP-0143: Add author responsibility to submission process https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1552
I'm not sure about the wording "take responsibility" here, it seems a bit vague to me. Does that mean responsible of legal liability? Plagiarism of existing specs? Or responsible if things are not working? Something else? What does people think about that? Also, on one hand it's important that somebody contributing take care of proposing original work, and check that there is a minimum quality requirement, but we should not put too much burden on specification author (i.e.; in case of any legal trouble, it should be handle by/with the XSF in my opinion, not by the author(s) alone). Maybe something like that: "You must understand and verify every part of your contribution. You must ensure that your work is original and not a plagiarism of other people work."
[SNIP]
Best, Goffi
Thanks for raising this Goffi, I can see how "take responsibility" can be interpreted as being too vague. If it is interpreted as imposing legal liability on the individual author, that could be problematic. I don't think it obviously does, but prevention is probably pretty easy and cheap. I suggest to slightly modify your suggested text, into this: "You must understand and verify every part of your contribution, and ensure that material derived from other sources is properly attributed." I'm less keen on "ensure that your work is original", since XEPs necessarily build on existing specifications and prior work, and "original" could be ambiguous. This wording keeps the requirement tool-neutral: it applies equally to copied text, AI-generated material, machine translation, etc. The important point is that the author understands and verifies what they submit, which was the motivation for the PR in the first place. Kind regards, Guus On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 4:26 PM Goffi <goffi@goffi.org> wrote:
Hi,
Le mardi 25 août 2026, 11:46:15 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Daniel Gultsch a écrit :
[SNIP] a) XEP-0143: Add author responsibility to submission process https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1552
I'm not sure about the wording "take responsibility" here, it seems a bit vague to me. Does that mean responsible of legal liability? Plagiarism of existing specs? Or responsible if things are not working? Something else?
What does people think about that?
Also, on one hand it's important that somebody contributing take care of proposing original work, and check that there is a minimum quality requirement, but we should not put too much burden on specification author (i.e.; in case of any legal trouble, it should be handle by/with the XSF in my opinion, not by the author(s) alone).
Maybe something like that:
"You must understand and verify every part of your contribution. You must ensure that your work is original and not a plagiarism of other people work."
[SNIP]
Best, Goffi_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
I like better your new wording, this looks good to me. Le mardi 25 août 2026, 17:10:32 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Guus der Kinderen a écrit :
Thanks for raising this Goffi,
I can see how "take responsibility" can be interpreted as being too vague. If it is interpreted as imposing legal liability on the individual author, that could be problematic. I don't think it obviously does, but prevention is probably pretty easy and cheap. I suggest to slightly modify your suggested text, into this:
"You must understand and verify every part of your contribution, and ensure that material derived from other sources is properly attributed."
I'm less keen on "ensure that your work is original", since XEPs necessarily build on existing specifications and prior work, and "original" could be ambiguous.
This wording keeps the requirement tool-neutral: it applies equally to copied text, AI-generated material, machine translation, etc. The important point is that the author understands and verifies what they submit, which was the motivation for the PR in the first place.
Kind regards,
Guus
On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 4:26 PM Goffi <goffi@goffi.org> wrote:
Hi,
Le mardi 25 août 2026, 11:46:15 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Daniel Gultsch a écrit :
[SNIP] a) XEP-0143: Add author responsibility to submission process https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1552
I'm not sure about the wording "take responsibility" here, it seems a bit vague to me. Does that mean responsible of legal liability? Plagiarism of existing specs? Or responsible if things are not working? Something else?
What does people think about that?
Also, on one hand it's important that somebody contributing take care of proposing original work, and check that there is a minimum quality requirement, but we should not put too much burden on specification author (i.e.; in case of any legal trouble, it should be handle by/with the XSF in my opinion, not by the author(s) alone).
Maybe something like that:
"You must understand and verify every part of your contribution. You must ensure that your work is original and not a plagiarism of other people work."
[SNIP]
Best, Goffi_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
Hi Flow and all, On Tue, 2026-08-25 at 11:46 +0200, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
c) XEP-0134: Add guideline against context-dependent elements https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1558
While discussing this in Council, I found that the current wording is a little fuzzy on the intent. I think everyone can agree that the example shows something that we usually want to avoid: re-use of a QName but with different semantics and thus also different syntax requirements based on context. However, when the semantics are largely the same, I personally believe context-dependent requirements are sensible. An example for this would be XEP-0446, which describes an element that is meant to be used in different context and which even explicitly says that depending on the context there might be requirement on the children required. In that sense, this new "Avoid Context-Dependent Element Definitions" guideline also to some degree contradicts the "Modular is better" guideline. I believe what you want to say is that the semantic meaning of elements with identical QName should not vary wildly based on the context (e.g. the same QName should not be used to announce feature support and request a server action). This IMO even holds when they don't have different syntax requirements. Marvin
participants (4)
-
Daniel Gultsch -
Goffi -
Guus der Kinderen -
Marvin W.