Hi Matthew, hi all, Thanks for writing this up so clearly.
On real names: I think a good way forward could be to explicitly define a process that *defaults* to using real names, while clearly allowing for non-disclosure. For example, the call for information could explain why the XMPP Standards Foundation generally uses real names, but also make it explicit that this is not a hard requirement, and document the process for opting out (e.g. name known only to the Secretary). Why I think real names matter (as a default): visible people help with transparency and trust, make attribution of work clearer, and give some continuity and accountability to what we publish as an organization. For an open standards body, that public-facing human aspect does have value. That said, I don't think those benefits outweigh legitimate privacy or safety concerns, which is why having a clear, accepted opt-out path feels important to me. On vote tallies: I don't personally see the "popularity contest" angle as the main issue. What I do recognize is that vote counts can create tension, especially for first-time applicants. I haven't yet formed a strong opinion on switching from publishing counts to publishing only outcomes. One concern I have is that if tallies are no longer public, a later negative decision (e.g. someone not being renewed) could feel more dramatic or suspicious if there wasn't a visible downward trend beforehand. So this is still an open question for me, and I'm curious to learn of other views. Finally, it's possible that these changes would require adjustments to the bylaws. I'm not sure we've done that before, but I don't see it as a blocker: just something to be clear about and handle properly if we go down this path. Kind regards, Guus On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 6:47 PM Jonas Schäfer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Dienstag, 3. März 2026 18:14:46 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit Matthew > Wild > wrote: > > 1) Make the publication of members' real names optional > > > > This has come up a number of times, and there is broad consensus that > > we don't need to publish real names of our members, even if we may > > need to have them privately on file. > > > > This proposal would be to explicitly permit members to reveal their > > names only to the XSF Secretary, and allow pseudonyms to be used > > elsewhere. > > > > I believe that adoption of this proposal would help encourage more > > people to join the XSF as members, who may be unwilling to publish > > their real name on the internet, or connect their identity with the > > XSF (for which I can think of countless possible reasons). > > SGTM. Do we have to adapt the bylaws for this? > > > 2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership applications > > > > It has been raised before, by someone who said it contributed to not > > renewing their membership, that the presence of "no" votes on the > > membership page was not a good experience. > > > > Realistically, it is very rare for members to be accepted unanimously > > (most people have some "no" votes, and this will only increase as our > > membership increases). However, I fear that publishing the vote counts > > turns it into something of an unnecessary popularity contest, even if > > it isn't aiming to be one. It's not necessary for them to be public, > > as long as we keep the results on file. > > > > For people who are part of minorities in our community, it can be > > disconcerting to be told that some people voted against them, and to > > have a publicly visible record and ranking. > > > > Therefore I am proposing reduction of our membership results to a list > > of accepted members instead of publishing tallies publicly. > > SGTM. > > > I am not proposing changes to our council or board elections, as I > > think those would need additional consideration and may warrant > > greater transparency. > > kind regards, > Jonas
