[Members] Membership Application period Q1 2018

Mathieu Pasquet mathieui at mathieui.net
Fri Jan 5 09:34:01 UTC 2018

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:56:24PM +0000, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 4 January 2018 at 16:09, Daniel Pocock <daniel at pocock.pro> wrote:
> > On 02/01/18 15:33, Alexander Gnauck wrote:
> >> I have created the membership application page for Q1 2018 at:
> >> https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q1_2018
> >>
> >
> > I'd like to reapply but I can't log in to the wiki, maybe my account was
> > lost after the wiki problems.
> >
> > Also, is it really necessary for everybody to go through this process
> > every year or can some mechanism be used to automatically validate
> > people?  E.g. if somebody's name has appeared on a mailing list, if
> > their blog is syndicated on planet.jabber.org or if they made a
> > contribution to the wiki then that could qualify them to remain a member
> But none of those are either sufficient, nor necessary, for XSF membership.
> If I can rant lyrical for a moment, what I expect from XSF members is
> that they contribute meaningfully to the XMPP Standards Foundation.
> The XSF exists to enable the development and evangelisation (ie,
> marketing, but we're engineers so we think that's a dirty word) of the
> XMPP standards. The XSF does not, itself, actually develop the
> standards (there's a confusion here in that the Council arguably
> contributes a significant effort to development of XMPP, but one can
> view it as ensuring the process is working from a technical
> standpoint).
> As an example, writing a XEP doesn't require XSF membership, and nor should it.
> But ensuring that the XEP *can* be published, *is* published, has a
> process to follow to ensure quality, and follows that process - those
> are all activities which the XSF does. Groups exist for each of these
> - the iteam, the Editors, the Board, and the Council (sorta).
> The XSF organises conferences (SCAM), and does outreach and marketing
> (well, comms team if it existed).
> I would hope that people wanting to be members are applying not to do
> the things they could do anyway, but because they want to enable other
> do do those things effectively.
> All of which, by the way, should not be taken as a suggestion that
> Daniel doesn't do anything - I think organising that FOSDEM devroom is
> proof enough of that - but there are sadly a lot of names on the
> member list that I don't see around in the teams helping with the
> often quite dull work involved in keeping this whole thing running.


I understand your views, but this is not at all how membership is
defined on the XSF website right now [1]. It says that being a member
depends on technical merit, and being actively involved in the

If you feel that membership should be tied to being in council, board,
or work teams, and/or doing work specifically for the XSF’s sake, then
that should be redefined and clarified.

Being a member also allows to steer the standards in one direction on
another through council election, and restricting that to people that
are involved in XSF-org activities would be in my opinion

[1]: https://xmpp.org/community/membership.html


More information about the Members mailing list