[Foundation] Text Conferencing Ammendment

bauer at michaelbauer.com bauer at michaelbauer.com
Thu Aug 15 15:45:25 CDT 2002


Ben is absolutely right.  This is coming down to a simple risk/reward 
calcuation.  If it's the consensus of everyone that no, it's far too risky 
to have the possibility of someone spoofing someone else in a text 
conference for a Jabber Software Foundation meeting - even if votes are 
taking through something a bit more secure like memberbot, then fine.  We 
don't get the reward of having the convenience of people to participate in 
this manner.  If they're overseas, they'll just have to spring for the 
potentially hundreds of dollars it could cost to participate in a 
teleconference for an overseas phone call.  I personally don't care 
because I'm going to attend the meeting in person.  I was just trying to 
make it easier for people to participate while at the same time I seemed 
to be making it harder to do so by advocating that we stick a bit more to 
the by-laws.  

This isn't a National (U.S.) Security conference.  It's just a Jabber 
meeting.


On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Ben Schumacher wrote:

> Playing devil's advocate now...
> 
> So uh... then we all have to do a web of trust, etc, etc. How do I know
> you're really temas, despite what your PGP key says, if I haven't met
> you...? (This is theoretical, of course... since we have met.) But how do
> I know you are you say you are in person? You could have a fake ID?
> 
> /me just wants people to keep focus on the issues at hand, rather than the
> whole internet identity problem at large.
> 
> We'll just have to wait for PingID to figure that part out for us. ;)
> 
> bs.
> 
> On 15 Aug 2002, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> > My point is, without verification of the identity through something like
> > PGP keys, fingerprints, dna samples, or whatever else the component
> > accepts, the system is probably not within the bounds we're researching
> > again.  If people accept that fact, fine, but I won't trust it =)
> >
> > Memberbot can be partially trusted because it verifies the JID, which no
> > one has shown a complete way to spoof, yet (bum bum bum, insert
> > foreboding music here).  I still think it could be improved with
> > something like PGP signed presence, or the new XML encryption stuff.
> >
> > --temas
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 14:07, bauer at michaelbauer.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I think "useless sham" is a bit strong.  All I'm trying to do is to strike
> > > some balance between doing what needs to be done from the perspective of
> > > the by-laws and providing some accommodation for the "Jabber way" of
> > > communicating in a cooperative fashion.  Technically, no meetings can be
> > > held without being there in person or on the phone in a conference call.
> > > No votes can be carried out unless done so in-person, on the phone,
> > > in-writing, or through e-mail (and even that is a bit suspect).
> > >
> > > We're kind of going from one extreme to the other here.  Voting for Board
> > > Members via the memberbot is definitely not acceptable yet everyone seemed
> > > OK with that.  Now, simply adding the memberbot as an additional conduit
> > > in the context of the more legally correct physical meeting supplemented
> > > by conference calls does not seem acceptable.
> > >
> > > On 15 Aug 2002, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> > >
> > > > You still have identity issues.  The groupchat server, in it's current
> > > > state, just can't verify that people are who they say they are.  While
> > > > this doesn't hurt voting, it does make the meeting something of a
> > > > useless sham.
> > > >
> > > > --temas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 13:31, bauer at michaelbauer.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe we could something else, like MSN?
> > > > >
> > > > > :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously, I think we could use groupchat for meetings but then carry out
> > > > > votes using memberbot.  That way we could have the discussions and
> > > > > official votes would be verifiable.  I could ammend the ammendment to so
> > > > > stipulate.  Would that be acceptable?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > My only concern right now is that groupchat is essentially anonymous. We
> > > > > > need a way to verify that someone is who they say they are. Until then I'm
> > > > > > not sure we can regarding groupchat as reliably or official.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Peter Saint-Andre
> > > > > > Jabber Software Foundation
> > > > > > http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 bauer at michaelbauer.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There has been some continual confusion over whether we can use Jabber to
> > > > > > > actually have some of these meetings.  I'd like to try and end that
> > > > > > > confusion for meetings of the Members:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I propose that the Board of Directors approve the addition of the
> > > > > > > following sentence to the end of the existing paragraph for Section 3.1
> > > > > > > Place of Meetings in the Jabber Software Foundation By-Laws.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Text conferencing is an approved form of remote communication provided
> > > > > > > all participants communicate with one another through the text
> > > > > > > conference."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note a couple of things about this statement.  First, the caveat that all
> > > > > > > participants have to communicate with one another through the conference.
> > > > > > > This seems a little redundant but it's important because you can't have
> > > > > > > some people talking on the phone and others talking in the text
> > > > > > > conference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Second, note that this does NOT necessarily apply to a meeting of the
> > > > > > > Board of Directors.  I think that those meetings must still be conducted
> > > > > > > over the phone at a minimum.  Resolving whether the Board can use text
> > > > > > > conferencing is not nearly as important right now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Michael Bauer     bauer at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Members mailing list
> > > > > > > Members at jabber.org
> > > > > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Members mailing list
> > > > > > Members at jabber.org
> > > > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Michael Bauer     bauer at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Members mailing list
> > > > > Members at jabber.org
> > > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Members mailing list
> > > > Members at jabber.org
> > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Michael Bauer     bauer at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Members mailing list
> > > Members at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bauer     bauer at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com




More information about the Members mailing list