[Members] How about a round-up post on FOSDEM/XMPP Summit @xmpp.org?

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 16:00:57 UTC 2012


On 18 February 2012 15:36,  <jehan at zemarmot.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 2012-02-19 00:06, Matthew Wild a écrit :
>
>> The fact is that we do have people who can't make the events who would
>> like to participate. Being able to hear the group discussions and
>> talks that took place, after the event at a minimum, is helpful I
>> think.
>
>
> I concur. As being one of the people who couldn't make it, I find it sad
> that all the recordings just go to the void. I don't say that I would have
> listened to all of them if there are hours of them, but would definitely
> have made a selection to listen if they were available.
>
> This kind of decision from people who don't want their participation
> recorded and published kind of makes the event feel like against the whole
> idea of the XSF: a *public* Standards Foundation with an *open process*, as
> far as I know, not a private company, here for money and wishing to hide
> assets, secret business plan, or what else.
>

I agree that community discussions should not be behind closed doors.
However while I made no attempt to hide the fact I was recording (in
fact quite the opposite), I fully understand that it may have been
missed by some people at the other end of the table to me and the
microphone (which was about two thirds down a long table, for people
who weren't there).

> I don't say that we should go against Kevin's decision now if that was
> actually not clear, but I therefore propose that it should be made clear
> from now on that anything contributed during/in any of the XSF media
> (mailing list, xmpp.org chatrooms, official physical and non-physical
> events, and so on) is deemed public and publishable. As far as I know,
> that's how it works in the IETF and I am astonished if we don't have some
> policy written down already about any kind of contributions (I searched a
> little, but could only find about XEP contributions specifically in the IPR
> policy, not contributions in general).

Likewise. We have a large enough community now that it's past the
point where we need a public policy on this. Obviously as the
organisation we are, we are very much in favour of peoples' privacy,
but also of our own transparency. Making a balance between the two
isn't always easy, as this conversation demonstrates :)

> And if someone does not agree with it, one should not participate (none is
> forced to) rather than prevent the open process of the Foundation.
> Could we add such a policy for the future?

Seconded.

A similar discussion has come up here before, for example when someone
wanted to become an XSF member without publishing their real name.
Ultimately there will always be people who fall on the wrong side of
these kind of decisions, and hence not be able to participate. However
we need to make decisions about cases like these, and make them known.

Regards,
Matthew


More information about the Members mailing list