[Members] Publishing Non-Open-Standard Specifications

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 16 16:52:52 UTC 2020


On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 15:56, Guus der Kinderen
<guus.der.kinderen at gmail.com> wrote:
> If the goal of the XSF is to be an Open Standards organisation in the way I feel you and me define it, I feel that it cannot promote a XEP that clearly breaks with that objective. I feel that we should stand by our objectives, as those reflect primary principles of the XSF. By introducing 'wiggle-room', we'd send out a signal that we have principles, but only when they're not inconvenient.

I believe I stand with you on the XSF's goal as an Open Standards
organisation. I also agree that it should not promote a XEP that is at
adds with its objectives and principles. However I do not agree that
adopting the document with a "We do not endorse this document, it is
here for documentation purposes only" notice is "promoting" the XEP.

As has been rightly pointed out, another objective of the XSF is to
serve the XMPP by documenting what XMPP is. I feel that "what XMPP is"
and "what the XSF claims XMPP is" are rapidly diverging these days.

I understand that sometimes it is difficult to strike the balance
between designing the perfect protocol and accepting what is currently
deployed. My feeling is that recent Councils have been hasty to reject
some protocols on the grounds that they are imperfect, but no
replacement has come along. Maybe in the future we will have MLS -
let's work towards that. Right now we have OMEMO. To ignore this when
the list of clients supporting OMEMO is long [1] and still growing is
to simply bury our head in the sand.

I'll state again for clarity that I do not agree with developing
protocols that have restrictions in their use. Let's not do that. But
OMEMO has happened so let's accept that fact and move on.

Regards,
Matthew

[1]: https://omemo.top/


More information about the Members mailing list