[Members] Civil Disobedience

[Ulrich B. Staudinger]

Right now - today - i think this letter seems to be hard.
Disabling S2S to see if the platform google has build actually scales 
well and remains stable with a couple of hundred thousand users online 
is really reasonable.

Directly to the letter about 'civil disobedience':
-1 today, +1 in a week or two.


Ulrich





Bart van Bragt wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>
>