[Members] Civil Disobedience

[Bart van Bragt]

Nolan Eakins wrote:
> Continuing my life long pursuit of civil disobedience along with a
> suggestion made on my blog about PetitionOnline.com, I put together the
> following two paragraphs to be used on a petition:
IMO it's much too early for such a harsh petition. Yes, I also strongly 
dislike the fact that Google is talking about federation and that it 
seems like they want to bind participants to that federation to a 
certain set of rules set by them. IMO closing your network like this 
(while pretending to be open) is very much against the philosophy behind 
Jabber.

But let's first try to figure out what their plans are and see if we 
(the JSF) can get into a normal dialogue with them before we start 
accusing them. There was some proverb with flies and honey? :)

So far Google has been a nice player, I'm hoping that they will stick to 
their "Don't be Evil" paradigm in this case.

Maybe the council should write an email/letter to Google about this 
federation business? Their main concern seems to be spam and other abuse 
and IMO they do have a point. I think we either have to convince them of 
the fact that SPAM is perfectly controllable (of course you can't ban it 
for 100%) or we have to work with them to make the XMPP network even 
more resilient against Spammers (i.e. Web of Trust, domainkeys, etc).

Bart