General question to all: Do you have concerns or general points that block this attempt entirely?
12 may 2024 17:30:08 Nicola Fabiano <[email protected]>: > 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
