Hi Eddie, Thank you for your further intervention highlighting your point of view.
On 12 May 2024, at 15:46, [email protected] wrote: > Hello, > > I like the attempt in general and have stated my thoughts in the first mail. > > Having any official representation in Europe would make also a statement and > I think is also a matter of trust to outside entities. It would also adress > the strong community we have in Europe. > > Nicola, further thoughts on the points mentioned by Mario and Winfried? I replyed just now to both Winfried and Mario. > > On 11.05.24 12:58, Mario Sabatino <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> the discussion should cover two main points: >> >> 1) the possibility of lobbying into the EU institutions and how to start >> doing so; >> 2) the need to have an EU legal entity in order to receive funding from the >> EU institutions. >> >> For number 1) I don't think we need a legal entity based in the EU, but we >> do need just a lobbyist. >> For number 2), we could start by exploring how to get funding from the EU >> institutions and then evaluate the possibility of creating a legal entity. >> >> In the meantime, I think we could start with a simple representative office >> (a business address) of the XSF Foundation in Bruxelles. >> >> Ciao >> >> Mario Sabatino >> >> Il 10/05/24 18:32, Winfried Tilanus ha scritto: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm in favour, it would make several types of cooperation easier. But, > I >>> can't >>> judge what this would mean for taxes and so on. >>> >>> Winfried >>> >>> >>> On 9 May 2024 12:09:32 CEST, Nicola Fabiano <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> ;TLTR >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Regarding what is in the subject, I reproduced below the entire > >>> thread of >>> emails exchanged with the Board members related to my proposal > >>> regarding the >>> presence of XSF in Europe. >>> Each email is a block with a line separating one from the others. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Nicola >>> >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Following our last Board meeting, I propose to discuss the > >>> organization of >>> XSF's activities further to promote the XMPP protocol at every > level, >>> including at European institutions, possibly by participating in > >>> projects to >>> obtain contributions and funding (I have some ideas, but I will > >>> explain later). >>> >>> Each Board member's input is crucial. >>> I encourage everyone to outline a few items as our agenda for the > >>> next 6/12 >>> months. >>> These points should be related to programmatic and organizational > >>> business >>> only (non-technical), reflecting your unique perspectives and > >>> expertise. >>> >>> In that way, everyone can be in the running for one or more items > to >>> deal >>> with and what goal we (XSF) want to achieve following our program. >>> >>> Hence, feel free to share your thoughts about the programmatic and >>> organizational business, and then we can discuss them. >>> >>> Apart from programmatic and organizational business, the first > step >>> is the >>> proposal concerns amending the statutes of the registered office. > >>> That >>> modification is necessary to access the European institutions. Other >>> modification proposals are welcome, and we can evaluate all of them. >>> >>> Otherwise, an amended version (in bold italic) of Article 1 follows. >>> >>> >>> ARTICLE I: Offices >>> >>> *Section 1.1 Registered Office and Registered Agent.* The address > of >>> the >>> initial registered office of The XMPP Standards Foundation (the >>> “Corporation”) in the State of Delaware and the name of the initial >>> registered agent of the Corporation at such address are set forth > in >>> the >>> Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate”). The Corporation > >>> may, from >>> time to time, designate a different address as its registered > office >>> or a >>> different person as its registered agent, or both; provided, > >>> however, that >>> such designation shall become effective upon the filing of a > >>> statement of >>> such change with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware > as >>> is >>> required by law. >>> >>> /*Section 1.2 Principal Offices.*/ The principal offices of the > >>> Corporation >>> shall be at 1899 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, /*and at > >>> xxxx, xxx, >>> Europe,*/ or at such other place as the Board of Directors shall > >>> designate >>> from time to time. The business of the Corporation shall be > >>> transacted from >>> the principal /*offices*/, and the records of the Corporation > shall >>> be kept >>> there. /*Both principal offices have legal effect, irrespective > of >>> where the >>> activities are carried out and where they are intended*/. >>> >>> *Section 1.3 Other Offices.* The Corporation shall have such > offices >>> either >>> within or outside the State of Delaware and within or outside the > >>> United >>> States, as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine > or >>> as the >>> business of the Corporation may require. In the event the > Corporation >>> desires to qualify to do business in one or more states other > than >>> Delaware, >>> the Corporation shall designate the location of the registered > >>> office in >>> each such state and designate the registered agent for service of > >>> process at >>> such address in the manner provided by the law of the state in > which >>> the >>> corporation elects to be qualified. >>> >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Dear Eddie, >>> >>> Thank you for your email. >>> >>> I highlight that my email follows what I said during the Summit > in >>> Bruxelles. >>> My intervention represents a proposal submitted to the Board, > which >>> must be >>> discussed and voted on. >>> >>> On 27 Apr 2024, at 15:14, E.M. wrote: >>> >>> Dear Nicola, >>> >>> many thanks for the effort to bring to review of our XSF > >>> organizational >>> setup and make a suggestion to create a legal instance in > Europe. >>> I assume there will be more coming than creating an European > >>> instance >>> for the XSF, right? >>> >>> I thought it would be appropriate or helpful to try to be more > >>> proactive in >>> Europe. >>> >>> This also involves ensuring that XSF has a European presence and > is >>> ready >>> with an action plan and agenda. >>> >>> Not being a lawyer, I am supporting this attempt in general > very >>> much. I >>> believe we have a strong community in Europe and should also > >>> back up our >>> community here with a legal instance for the technology we > >>> standardize. >>> >>> My question would be what legal aspects we need to discuss > >>> having a >>> "bilateral" (or more) organizational setup? Does this bring > any >>> conflict? >>> How do we as Board member refer and deal with new things like > >>> DMA etc.? >>> What will EU legislation expect from us? What can we expect? >>> >>> From my perspective, the legal aspects are mainly concerned with > >>> amending >>> the bylaws to provide for a seat in Europe and the existence of a > >>> program, >>> i.e., what XSF proposes to do to promote XMPP. >>> >>> There shouldn't be any conflict because these are purely > >>> organizational >>> activities. >>> >>> I think that Board members should continue performing the same > >>> current >>> activities in compliance with the bylaws, such as providing > >>> information, >>> communicating, providing support where necessary, plus > implementing >>> programs. >>> >>> It's important to note that XSF, as a foundation, must act > >>> respecting the >>> bylaws, make proposals, and realize projects (if they exist). >>> >>> We should not expect more. >>> >>> However, XSF has the potential to form partnerships with > companies >>> that have >>> plans to present projects on a European level. >>> >>> If we create a new legal instance, can we create the instance > on >>> an >>> "Europe level" or would the instance exist in a distinct EU > >>> country? If >>> so, which country? >>> >>> The current bylaws already provide the possibility of setting up > >>> other >>> locations. >>> >>> We should only add a European XSF legal office (any Member State) > so >>> anyone >>> can see this in the bylaws themselves. >>> >>> My question to Board would be: As I am in all favor for this > >>> attempt, >>> and also in favor to put work and time into it, are you as > well >>> in >>> favor? Or are you not, and what does not meant to you? My > basic >>> question >>> is that I don't want to spent time fighting something that is > >>> actually >>> not of interest by a majority in the Board or the XSF > >>> organization. >>> Please kindly review this for yourself, too. >>> >>> I reiterate that my intervention is only a proposal that the > Board >>> discusses >>> and votes on. >>> >>> Therefore, I await the replies of others. >>> >>> By the way, do we need to review the way we handle member > >>> applications >>> and personal data? Any other hosting of data? >>> >>> Have a good day and stay healthy, >>> Eddie >>> >>> On 26.04.24 16:28, Nicola Fabiano wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Following our last Board meeting, I propose to discuss the >>> organization of XSF's activities further to promote the XMPP >>> protocol at every level, including at European institutions, >>> possibly by participating in projects to obtain > >>> contributions and >>> funding (I have some ideas, but I will explain later). >>> >>> Each Board member's input is crucial. >>> I encourage everyone to outline a few items as our agenda > >>> for the >>> next 6/12 months. >>> These points should be related to programmatic and > >>> organizational >>> business only (non-technical), reflecting your unique > >>> perspectives >>> and expertise. >>> >>> In that way, everyone can be in the running for one or > more >>> items to >>> deal with and what goal we (XSF) want to achieve > following >>> our program. >>> >>> Hence, feel free to share your thoughts about the > >>> programmatic and >>> organizational business, and then we can discuss them. >>> >>> Apart from programmatic and organizational business, the > >>> first step >>> is the proposal concerns amending the statutes of the > >>> registered >>> office. That modification is necessary to access the > European >>> institutions. Other modification proposals are welcome, > and >>> we can >>> evaluate all of them. >>> >>> Otherwise, an amended version (in bold italic) of Article > 1 >>> follows. >>> >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> ARTICLE I: Offices >>> >>> *Section 1.1 Registered Office and Registered Agent.* The > >>> address of >>> the initial registered office of The XMPP Standards > >>> Foundation (the >>> “Corporation”) in the State of Delaware and the name of > the >>> initial >>> registered agent of the Corporation at such address are > set >>> forth in >>> the Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate”). The >>> Corporation may, from time to time, designate a different > >>> address as >>> its registered office or a different person as its > >>> registered agent, >>> or both; provided, however, that such designation shall > >>> become >>> effective upon the filing of a statement of such change > with >>> the >>> Secretary of State of the State of Delaware as is > required >>> by law. >>> >>> /*Section 1.2 Principal Offices.*/ The principal offices > of >>> the >>> Corporation shall be at 1899 Wynkoop Street, Denver, > >>> Colorado 80202, >>> /*and at xxxx, xxx, Europe,*/ or at such other place as > the >>> Board of >>> Directors shall designate from time to time. The business > of >>> the >>> Corporation shall be transacted from the principal > >>> /*offices*/, and >>> the records of the Corporation shall be kept there. > /*Both >>> principal >>> offices have legal effect, irrespective of where the > >>> activities are >>> carried out and where they are intended*/. >>> >>> *Section 1.3 Other Offices.* The Corporation shall have > such >>> offices >>> either within or outside the State of Delaware and within > or >>> outside >>> the United States, as the Board of Directors may from > time >>> to time >>> determine or as the business of the Corporation may > require. >>> In the >>> event the Corporation desires to qualify to do business > in >>> one or >>> more states other than Delaware, the Corporation shall > >>> designate the >>> location of the registered office in each such state and > >>> designate >>> the registered agent for service of process at such > address >>> in the >>> manner provided by the law of the state in which the > >>> corporation >>> elects to be qualified. >>> >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> I look forward to receiving a reply from you. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Nicola >>> >>> ssigen >>> >>> I am available. >>> >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Ciao Peter, >>> >>> Thank you for your email and your insights. >>> >>> On 29 Apr 2024, at 21:22, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>> Ciao Nicola, >>> >>> Thank you for initiating this discussion. >>> >>> I don't feel qualified to provide accurate insights regarding > >>> your >>> proposal, so instead I will ask a few questions: >>> >>> (1) Is the intent here primarily to seek funding from European >>> organizations (e.g., EU grants)? >>> >>> Not only that, but the intention is to create a European > positioning >>> to >>> evaluate any possible initiative. XSF's official headquarters in > the >>> US >>> could be a distraction. From my point of view, an official > presence >>> in >>> Europe would facilitate involvement in possible partnerships and > more >>> attention from the institutions (the European digital strategy is > >>> strongly >>> focused on an internal market). That is my idea, and I hope to be > >>> right. >>> >>> (2) Is European domicile or a European business presence > >>> required in >>> order to receive such grants? >>> >>> That may not be the case, but as I said, presence in Europe would > >>> facilitate >>> access to possible resources. >>> >>> (3) What are the legal, regulatory, tax (and thus also > financial) >>> implications of establishing a European business presence or >>> "co-domicile" such as you have outlined? >>> >>> I am not an accountant, so I am answering from my experience. > Since >>> XSF is a >>> Foundation, contributions should not be taxed, especially if they > >>> come from >>> institutional sources (participation in any EU projects). It may be >>> necessary, with an office in Europe, to apply for a tax code or > VAT >>> number, >>> but this should be asked of an accountant. >>> >>> (4) What is needed in order to establish such a presence or > >>> co-domicile? >>> Do we need an office / physical address, or merely a mailing > >>> address? >>> >>> The bylaws should be changed to provide for a seat in Europe with > a >>> postal >>> address of any kind. >>> >>> (5) Should we perhaps consider moving the organization to Europe >>> entirely instead of having some presence in the USA and some > in a >>> European country? >>> >>> I propose to amend the bylaws, and I note two possible solutions: >>> >>> 1. change the registered office from the US to Europe and then > have >>> only >>> one office in the EU; >>> 2. Add - as provided for in the statute - a seat in the EU that > is >>> as >>> official as the one in the USA; this second solution, > legally, >>> seems >>> less valid to me. >>> >>> It always depends on what one wants to do, i.e., what projects > are >>> to be >>> realized and what XSF intends to do. >>> >>> I'd like to "take a step back" and consider what our goals > are. >>> Consider: >>> >>> * >>> >>> perhaps we feel it would be beneficial to significantly > >>> increase >>> certain kinds of activity, for example: >>> >>> o promote XMPP as a neutral technology for > >>> interoperability (cf. DMA) >>> o raise money that we can use to help support > >>> implementation of >>> key protocols in open-source servers and clients >>> * >>> >>> perhaps we feel that the best way to do that would be to > >>> seek out >>> funding from European sources >>> >>> * >>> >>> perhaps we feel we won't be considered for such grants > >>> unless we >>> have a European business presence / co-domicile >>> >>> * >>> >>> then we might conclude that what you propose makes sense >>> >>> But it seems to me that we need to be clear on the goals, first. >>> >>> I agree, but XSF's identity and the goals it wants or would like > to >>> achieve >>> need clarification. Therefore, an organizational, administrative > (not >>> technical) program is needed. >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> P.S. Aside from the reasoning outlined above, there might be > >>> other >>> reasons to consider a co-domicile arrangement or moving the > >>> Foundation >>> to Europe entirely. For example: most of the XSF's and the > >>> community's >>> activity (Summits, FOSDEM, major open-source projects and > >>> companies) is >>> in Europe, not North America. So that might be worth > discussing >>> anyway. >>> >>> I agree, and this is one of the reasons why I made my proposal. >>> We are in no hurry. We can discuss it together, but we must > evaluate >>> it >>> soon. Otherwise, XSF remains isolated from the rest of the > business >>> world, >>> with a role relegated solely to technical aspects. XSF deserves > more. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Nicola >>> >>> On 4/26/24 8:28 AM, Nicola Fabiano wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Following our last Board meeting, I propose to discuss the >>> organization of XSF's activities further to promote the XMPP >>> protocol at every level, including at European institutions, >>> possibly by participating in projects to obtain > >>> contributions and >>> funding (I have some ideas, but I will explain later). >>> >>> Each Board member's input is crucial. >>> I encourage everyone to outline a few items as our agenda > >>> for the >>> next 6/12 months. >>> These points should be related to programmatic and > >>> organizational >>> business only (non-technical), reflecting your unique > >>> perspectives >>> and expertise. >>> >>> In that way, everyone can be in the running for one or > more >>> items to >>> deal with and what goal we (XSF) want to achieve > following >>> our program. >>> >>> Hence, feel free to share your thoughts about the > >>> programmatic and >>> organizational business, and then we can discuss them. >>> >>> Apart from programmatic and organizational business, the > >>> first step >>> is the proposal concerns amending the statutes of the > >>> registered >>> office. That modification is necessary to access the > European >>> institutions. Other modification proposals are welcome, > and >>> we can >>> evaluate all of them. >>> >>> Otherwise, an amended version (in bold italic) of Article > 1 >>> follows. >>> >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> |ARTICLE I: Offices | >>> >>> /Section 1.1 Registered Office and Registered Agent./ The > >>> address of >>> the initial registered office of The XMPP Standards > >>> Foundation (the >>> “Corporation”) in the State of Delaware and the name of > the >>> initial >>> registered agent of the Corporation at such address are > set >>> forth in >>> the Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate”). The >>> Corporation may, from time to time, designate a different > >>> address as >>> its registered office or a different person as its > >>> registered agent, >>> or both; provided, however, that such designation shall > >>> become >>> effective upon the filing of a statement of such change > with >>> the >>> Secretary of State of the State of Delaware as is > required >>> by law. >>> >>> //Section 1.2 Principal Offices.// The principal offices > of >>> the >>> Corporation shall be at 1899 Wynkoop Street, Denver, > >>> Colorado 80202, >>> //and at xxxx, xxx, Europe,// or at such other place as > the >>> Board of >>> Directors shall designate from time to time. The business > of >>> the >>> Corporation shall be transacted from the principal > >>> //offices//, and >>> the records of the Corporation shall be kept there. > //Both >>> principal >>> offices have legal effect, irrespective of where the > >>> activities are >>> carried out and where they are intended//. >>> >>> /Section 1.3 Other Offices./ The Corporation shall have > such >>> offices >>> either within or outside the State of Delaware and within > or >>> outside >>> the United States, as the Board of Directors may from > time >>> to time >>> determine or as the business of the Corporation may > require. >>> In the >>> event the Corporation desires to qualify to do business > in >>> one or >>> more states other than Delaware, the Corporation shall > >>> designate the >>> location of the registered office in each such state and > >>> designate >>> the registered agent for service of process at such > address >>> in the >>> manner provided by the law of the state in which the > >>> corporation >>> elects to be qualified. >>> >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> On 2 May 2024, at 1:38, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>> Ciao Nicola, more thoughts below... >>> >>> On 4/30/24 1:32 AM, Nicola Fabiano wrote: >>> >>> Ciao Peter, >>> >>> Thank you for your email and your insights. >>> >>> On 29 Apr 2024, at 21:22, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>> |Ciao Nicola, Thank you for initiating this discussion. I > >>> don't feel >>> qualified to provide accurate insights regarding your > >>> proposal, so >>> instead I will ask a few questions: (1) Is the intent > here >>> primarily >>> to seek funding from European organizations (e.g., EU > >>> grants)? | >>> >>> Not only that, but the intention is to create a European > >>> positioning >>> to evaluate any possible initiative. XSF's official > >>> headquarters in >>> the US could be a distraction. From my point of view, an > >>> official >>> presence in Europe would facilitate involvement in possible >>> partnerships and more attention from the institutions > (the >>> European >>> digital strategy is strongly focused on an internal > market). >>> That is >>> my idea, and I hope to be right. >>> >>> This seems like a reasonable hypothesis. >>> >>> If there were no costs involved and we could identify people > to >>> handle >>> certain aspects of XSF operations (e.g., the Treasurer role > that >>> I've >>> filled for many years), I would be in favor of moving the entire >>> organization from the USA to the EU. >>> >>> Of course, there are always costs involved and it's not > always >>> easy to >>> find people to fill certain roles in the long term. :-) But I > >>> think it's >>> worth exploring. >>> >>> Naturally, if this change led to more funding, then we'd have > >>> money to >>> spend on legal and accounting help to make the transition > across >>> the >>> Atlantic. But we have a bit of a "chicken and egg problem" here. >>> >>> |(2) Is European domicile or a European business presence > >>> required >>> in order to receive such grants? | >>> >>> That may not be the case, but as I said, presence in > Europe >>> would >>> facilitate access to possible resources. >>> >>> |(3) What are the legal, regulatory, tax (and thus also > >>> financial) >>> implications of establishing a European business presence or >>> "co-domicile" such as you have outlined? | >>> >>> I am not an accountant, so I am answering from my > >>> experience. Since >>> XSF is a Foundation, contributions should not be taxed, > >>> especially >>> if they come from institutional sources (participation in > >>> any EU >>> projects). It may be necessary, with an office in Europe, > to >>> apply >>> for a tax code or VAT number, but this should be asked of > an >>> accountant. >>> >>> For sure. I am reasonably familiar with U.S. rules for > >>> non-profits, but >>> I am utterly ignorant of the situation in the EU (or UK), I > >>> don't know >>> how things differ by country and which countries are most > >>> friendly to >>> non-profit organizations, etc. >>> >>> |(4) What is needed in order to establish such a presence or >>> co-domicile? Do we need an office / physical address, or > >>> merely a >>> mailing address? | >>> >>> The bylaws should be changed to provide for a seat in > Europe >>> with a >>> postal address of any kind. >>> >>> BTW, the current Bylaws specify an address of 1899 Wynkoop > >>> Street in >>> Denver, but that was the old Jabber Inc. address and we no > longer >>> receive mail there. At this point the Principal Address is > >>> probably my >>> house! (We do have a post office box, but business operations > >>> are not >>> conducted there.) >>> >>> |(5) Should we perhaps consider moving the organization > to >>> Europe >>> entirely instead of having some presence in the USA and > some >>> in a >>> European country? | >>> >>> I propose to amend the bylaws, and I note two possible > >>> solutions: >>> >>> 1. change the registered office from the US to Europe > and >>> then have >>> only one office in the EU; >>> >>> See above. This is not a trivial undertaking and we'd need to > >>> estimate >>> the costs, both initial and recurring. But I am not opposed > to >>> it. >>> >>> 2. Add - as provided for in the statute - a seat in the > EU >>> that is as >>> official as the one in the USA; this second solution, > >>> legally, seems >>> less valid to me. >>> >>> It always depends on what one wants to do, i.e., what > >>> projects are >>> to be realized and what XSF intends to do. >>> >>> True. We also need to think about things like organizational > >>> continuity >>> and succession planning. Specifically, I am uncomfortable > being >>> one of >>> the only active XSF members in the U.S., and the only one who > >>> can access >>> our bank account, file tax forms, etc. >>> >>> |I'd like to "take a step back" and consider what our > goals >>> are. >>> Consider: * perhaps we feel it would be beneficial to > >>> significantly >>> increase certain kinds of activity, for example: o > promote >>> XMPP as a >>> neutral technology for interoperability (cf. DMA) o raise > >>> money that >>> we can use to help support implementation of key > protocols in >>> open-source servers and clients * perhaps we feel that > the >>> best way >>> to do that would be to seek out funding from European > >>> sources * >>> perhaps we feel we won't be considered for such grants > >>> unless we >>> have a European business presence / co-domicile * then we > >>> might >>> conclude that what you propose makes sense But it seems > to >>> me that >>> we need to be clear on the goals, first. | >>> >>> I agree, but XSF's identity and the goals it wants or > would >>> like to >>> achieve need clarification. Therefore, an organizational, >>> administrative (not technical) program is needed. >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> |Peter P.S. Aside from the reasoning outlined above, > there >>> might be >>> other reasons to consider a co-domicile arrangement or > >>> moving the >>> Foundation to Europe entirely. For example: most of the > >>> XSF's and >>> the community's activity (Summits, FOSDEM, major open-source >>> projects and companies) is in Europe, not North America. > So >>> that >>> might be worth discussing anyway. | >>> >>> I agree, and this is one of the reasons why I made my > >>> proposal. >>> We are in no hurry. We can discuss it together, but we > must >>> evaluate >>> it soon. Otherwise, XSF remains isolated from the rest of > the >>> business world, with a role relegated solely to technical > >>> aspects. >>> XSF deserves more. >>> >>> I'm curious to hear more about your thinking here. >>> >>> I agree with you. As you said, it is worth considering a legal > >>> office in Europe. >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> Ciao Peter, >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Nicola >>> >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> On 2 May 2024, at 17:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>> On 5/2/24 1:01 AM, Nicola Fabiano wrote: >>> >>> On 2 May 2024, at 1:38, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>> |Ciao Nicola, more thoughts below... On 4/30/24 1:32 AM, > >>> Nicola >>> Fabiano wrote: We can discuss it together, but we must > >>> evaluate it >>> soon. Otherwise, XSF remains isolated from the rest of > the >>> business >>> world, with a role relegated solely to technical aspects. > XSF >>> deserves more. I'm curious to hear more about your > thinking >>> here. | >>> >>> I agree with you. As you said, it is worth considering a > >>> legal >>> office in Europe. >>> >>> Specifically, I would like to understand more fully why you > say >>> that the >>> "XSF remains isolated from the rest of the business world, > with >>> a role >>> relegated solely to technical aspects." >>> >>> Since its founding in 2001, the XSF as a standards development >>> organization has indeed been dedicated (or relegated) solely to >>> technical aspects: primarily defining standardized protocols > >>> along with >>> a very few ancillary matters. With a few rare exceptions, the > >>> XSF hasn't >>> even actively supported (e.g., with monetary grants) the > >>> projects and >>> companies that develop XMPP-compatible software. In large > part, >>> this is >>> a legacy of the XSF's place in the Jabber/XMPP ecosystem and its >>> founding as a neutral organization that would not favor any > >>> particular >>> vendor or developer, or even favor open-source software over > >>> proprietary >>> software. It is also consistent with the nature of our > >>> community, which >>> consists of technically-minded people who don't know much > about >>> things >>> like marketing or government policy. >>> >>> In your mind, what would a closer integration with the rest > of >>> the >>> business world look like? What new activities would we engage > >>> in? What >>> expertise would we need to acquire? And so on. >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> Peter, >>> >>> My meaning was that XSF—as a foundation—even though it was born in a >>> technical context and is dedicated to XEP, could also organize > public >>> events, do dissemination, participate in competitions to obtain > >>> public or >>> private funding, be proactive in the communication and > dissemination >>> of >>> XMPP, etc. >>> I did not mean that XSF does not carry out activities but that > these >>> could >>> extend. >>> From my point of view, I see more opportunities in Europe than > in >>> the rest >>> of the world. >>> >>> -------------- >>> >>> /This e-mail (including attachments) is intended only for the > >>> recipient(s) >>> named above. It may contain confidential or privileged > information >>> and >>> should not be read, copied, or used by anyone else. If you are > not >>> the named >>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from > your >>> system./ >>> >>> -- > Normally there is some text here, bragging about the new phone and > >>> excusing for >>> the brevity. That is insane: if this phone was really that great, I > would >>> have >>> sent a decent mail. >> >> All the best, Nicola
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
