[Members] Board Minutes 20150302T1600Z
dave at cridland.net
Mon Mar 2 17:41:37 UTC 2015
On 2 March 2015 at 16:58, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> Preview of the home page (with proposed copy) here:
The proposed copy deeply concerns me, because much of the lower section
appears to be recommending specific technical solutions, in the form of
The remainder of the plan seems fine to me (though I would prefer to
maintain the XEP URLs without redirection; my gut feeling is that this
would be safer technically). I'm not saying I agree enthusiastically with
having a starship corridor picture take up the bulk of the XSF's site or
the downplaying of the standards process itself - but I'm willing to accept
that I don't know much about marketing, and the Board certainly has people
who know much more than me.
However, the proposal to pick out specific implementations for publicity
worries me greatly. I do not think that's a decision that would be wise to
make, and moreover, it's not a decision for the website group at all.
(Though my suspicion based on the short discussion I've seen suggests the
Council are unlikely to be willing to make it either).
Having multiple implementations is a good and valuable thing; it's what
keeps us honest as a real standards community, and it keeps us healthy and
Recommending only Prosody sends a dangerous message to those developers
working on other servers - it says that we do not care about those other
servers, only the recommended choice. This is a ridiculous stance to take.
It's not that Prosody is a poor server - quite the opposite - but it's
hardly the only quality server available. It's not even demonstrably the
most popular, or the simplest to install. This is simply a personal
preference that's unfortunately been presented as an organizational
Similarly, the site mockup talks about web integration using only
Stanza.io; again, it's a reasonable library, but are we intending to say
it's the only choice? There are several other web libraries after all, and
their developers rank amongst the most active members of the community.
The choice of SleekXMPP has similar concerns. I realise there's a certain
degree of personal familiarity here, but really, there are countless
cross-platform XMPP libraries capable of demonstrating little examples;
picking one is very much against the implementation-neutrality I think the
XSF should embody.
I do appreciate the sentiment that having useful "developer documentation"
content is going to enable XMPP penetration; I don't think alienating 90%
of the community is the right way of going about this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Members