[Council] [Board] Software recommendations on xmpp.org website
kevin.smith at isode.com
Fri Feb 20 08:25:48 UTC 2015
Note: Council can’t respond to the board list (other than me), so this isn’t going to work as a way of discussing very well.
On 20 Feb 2015, at 03:35, adam at andyet.com wrote:
> xmpp.org having “recommended” options might be controversial and undesirable in the “we’re all equals here” sense of being a standards body, but I really believe it would be a Good Thing™ in being responsible leaders of a community. Of course, I believe those recommendations should be reflected by council, and perhaps even voted on or ratified by members.
> Does anyone think this is a *bad* idea?
I think it’s a very appealing idea, but I don’t see any way of it working:
a) Technically. For us to evaluate scaling, for example, scalability is decidedly non-trivial. Reliability even more so.
b) Politically. I remember the last time the JSF tried running objective feature lists for servers, and the games the vendors used to play to get their scores higher, and just looking at the lies told on the wikipedia comparison page shows that this is a bit of a minefield.
I’m uncomfortable with using the voice of the XSF for this.
As a counter-proposal, if we feel this is really needed, we might consider doing this as individuals. i.e. “Here’s each member of Council’s personal opinion on clients and servers. These don’t represent the views of the XSF”. I think this would still be useful for users and admins, needs a lower bar as it’s opinion, rather than trying to be objective, and a /little/ less politically challenging (although I’m still concerned about this).
I’m not sure how our sponsors that sell servers would feel if we, for example, as a majority agreed Prosody was the primary choice for a free server and said so, while Matt is on Council. Or even non-sponsors. The appearance of an old boys’ club (which I think there is a danger of) seems damaging.
More information about the Council