[Members] Civil Disobedience
Ulrich B. Staudinger
us at activestocks.de
Wed Aug 24 09:33:34 CDT 2005
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.
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).
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members