[Members] Civil Disobedience
stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Aug 24 10:51:49 CDT 2005
Nolan Eakins wrote:
> I stopped when I came to their community URL. Anyone have any qualms
> about making this an official JSF petition to Google?
One person's civil disobedience is another person's loose cannon. They
officially released the service earlier today and you're jumping on them
already? What's the problem with giving them time to work out some of
the kinks first? Why the attack mode?
There are plenty of organizations and service providers using XMPP who
are not connected to the open network or to each other -- in fact most
of the big deployments are not interconnected. I agree that working
toward federation of those deployments is important. But attacking
Google, who at least has made a public committment to federation, is not
the right way to make that happen. Have you ever heard the saying "you
can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar"?
As I just said to a journalist I was chatting with, other than on the
open Jabber network, federation is unheard of in the IM world. There are
many problems with federation in the email world (even other than spam)
and a lot of organizations don't want to get burned again. They want to
get IM federation right. If that means developing some policies around
server-to-server interconnection -- e.g., use TLS only and require that
the other side have a non-self-signed certificate (perhaps using CAcert
if we can get more people on board with that) -- then I think that makes
sense. Google is taking a deliberate approach to federation and I see no
reason to punish them for it.
If you want to send your complaint or make it an open letter, you are
free to do so. But do not say that your opinion is representative of the
JSF. And in any case, if the JSF is to formulate a position, it will
need to be approved by the Board or by the full membership.
Jabber Software Foundation
More information about the Members