25 Aug
2026
25 Aug
'26
11:46 a.m.
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-jblSaG0na0Kh…
6) Date of Next
7) AOB
8) Close
25 Aug
25 Aug
4:26 p.m.
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
5:10 p.m.
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(a)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(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
5:39 p.m.
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(a)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(a)xmpp.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
>
0
days inactive
0
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Daniel Gultsch -
Goffi -
Guus der Kinderen