[Members] Publishing Non-Open-Standard Specifications

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Thu Jan 16 18:45:57 UTC 2020

Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 18:32 Uhr schrieb Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, 18:18 Jonas Schäfer, <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
>> Actually, I think adoption by someone except the XSF would be great, but I
>> fear that this is not going to happen. Instead, we will see tribal knowledge
>> like with AESGCM and the various MUC hacks which are barely documented. This
>> makes it hard for newcomers to implement a modern XMPP client.
>> I, however, see your points about being an Open Standards organization and
>> having principles. Maybe we simply need to find a different venue for some of
>> the extensions needed for XMPP-as-a-modern-IM-system. That feels like a lot of
>> overhead for AESGCM and OMEMO though.
> For what it's worth I'd accept PRs to modernxmpp.org, I already documented smaller stuff that way.
> I'm fine with that outcome if the XSF decides it has other objectives above serving to document XMPP on the behalf of developers.

A different venue is what this might ultimately boil down to because
the underlying conflict here is that the open source community, which
is super constraint on resources, sometimes has to focus on producing
working code rather than 'open standards'. It's equally unfair of the
XSF to try to force the open source community to produce open
standards than it is for the open source community to essentially
bully the XSF to accept something that clearly goes against the XSFs
stated goals.
However once an alternate organisation has been established the
question is what benefit the common, open source XMPP developer gets
from attempting to publish with the XSF as opposed to said


More information about the Members mailing list