On Sat, 29 May 2021 at 12:09, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote: > I'll change the name if using "Working Group" is what's concerning you, > fair enough, I can see how that makes this seem "official" somehow, but > "it's concerning if anyone discusses XEPs outside the XSF" is not a > position that makes any sense and we absolutely don't need permission > form the board or council to go ahead as planned. > > For clarity, I didn't say the words you have placed in quotation marks, and I don't think it's a fair representation of what I'm trying to say.
You do not need permission from anyone to discuss XEPs, no, and nor have I suggested that. You need permission to copy them, quote them, and make derivative works, but that's already granted to you (and anyone else). The XSF, on the other hand, *does* need permission to take those derivative works and copy them, including publishing them. I am concerned that we are in a position where we cannot clearly get that permission and (due to our IPR policy) the assignment. An external group which produces recommendations as a group makes this decision-making process, and the IPR ownership, opaque. Ordinarily, however XEPs may be discussed, we get recommendations, requests, new text, etc from individuals, not from a company, project, or "working group". You are proposing a different way of working, and I just don't think it's that simple to characterise it as "discussion". And you absolutely do need permission from the XSF to call it an "XSF ... Group". That would be representing this as being an official activity of the XMPP Standards Foundation, which it is not, and therefore is a misrepresentation I assume you didn't intend, but which compounds the issues above. > We're going to go ahead and discuss some XEPs. Naturally, the council > doesn't have to take any recommendations we come up with. > I honestly don't think getting an OK from the XSF is exactly onerous, especially when I've said I'll be aiming to get this. I would rather this thing went ahead, as I said, and do so with the backing of the XSF both as a community and as an organisation. You appear to be keen that it is not a sanctioned activity. I'd like to understand why. > > —Sam > > On Sat, May 29, 2021, at 05:47, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 29 May 2021 at 04:10, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote: > > > I don't understand how this would have anything to do with IPR, can > > > you expand on that? > > > > > > > Our IPR rules dictate that the XSF owns the IPR in our XEPs, and also > > the contributions to them. This is straightforward and simple on a > > mailing list, or a formal XSF activity like a summit. > > > > Outside of the XSF, things get murky, since if your group suggests > > changes, we're going to need to get IPR assignments from all of them. > > > > And if you're saying this is, and I quote, an "XSF Modernization > > Working Group", then things get murkier still, when it's not an XSF > > activity at all. > > > > To be very clear here, I think the actual goal here, and indeed the > > format, is great. With my Council hat on, I'm absolutely 100% > > behind this. > > > > But with my XSF Member hat on, and my XSF Board hat on, I'm concerned > > that this looks very like an XSF activity but isn't one, and I'm > > concerned that there are potential risks here. > > > > So what I'd like to propose is that we put this on hold for a bit, and > > get consensus from the membership and sanction from the Board to turn > > this into a virtual XMPP Summit (or mini-summit, or something). > > There's a delay involved because we'll need to get this sorted at the > > next Board meeting on Thursday, although I'm fine with trying to get > > agreement from the Board beforehand if the consensus from the > > membership is clear enough, and I'm happy to help seek and frame that > > consensus. > > > > How does that sound? > > > > Dave. > > > > > The idea is just to have a discussion about a bunch of XEPs and > > > where they are in the process. This sort of thing normally happens > > > on the mailing list, but getting a bunch of people in a room > > > together (more or less) is also a good way to generate ideas and > > > spark discussion. > > > > > > —Sam > > > > > > On Fri, May 28, 2021, at 14:54, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > > Hey Sam, > > > > > > > > I'm a little worried about this, and how it squares with our IPR > > > > policies. > > > > > > > > What do you feel can't be done within the XSF here? > > > > > > > > Dave. > > > > > > > > On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 15:31, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I'm doing another experiment with the office hours. Sometime in > > > > > the near future (currently 2021-06-08, but this may change) > > > > > we're going to try having a "working" session where we go > > > > > through a list of XEPs suggested by you all and write up > > > > > recommendations for what should happen to these XEPs. If we > > > > > don't finish within an hour we will spread it over multiple > > > > > days. > > > > > > > > > > These recommendations won't be actual language or work on any > > > > > specific XEP but should be process things like "issue LC", > > > > > "deprecate", "obsolete", or "needs rewrite". We'll try to > > > > > discuss each XEP and come to consensus on what the future of it > > > > > looks like, write it up in a document along with our reasoning > > > > > and any dissents if we can't come to consensus, and then present > > > > > the document to the council (who of course may or may not choose > > > > > to use it). > > > > > > > > > > If this sounds fun to anyone, please submit your ideas of XEPs > > > > > that need discussion and work before 08 June to the following > > > > > list: > > > > > > > > > > > https://pad.disroot.org/p/XSF_Modernization_Working_Group_Recommendations > > > > > > > > > > Consider setting a name for yourself before you edit and please > > > > > keep the list sorted. Thank you! > > > > > > > > > > —Sam > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Sam Whited > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Standards mailing list Info: > > > > > https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: > > > > > Standards- unsubscr...@xmpp.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Standards mailing list Info: > > > > https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: > > > > Standards- unsubscr...@xmpp.org <mailto:Standards- > > > > unsubscribe%40xmpp.org <mailto:Standards- > > > > unsubscribe%2540xmpp.org>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sam Whited > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Standards mailing list Info: > > > https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: > Standards- > > > unsubscr...@xmpp.org > > > _______________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > > Standards mailing list Info: > > https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: > Standards- > > unsubscr...@xmpp.org <mailto:Standards-unsubscribe%40xmpp.org> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > -- > Sam Whited > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
