On 29/05/2021 13.08, Sam Whited 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,
I could imagine that using 'XSF' in the title is more concerning. Maybe simply call it "XEP Modernization Working Group"? Or, perhaps even better, "XEP Modernization Discussion Group"?
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.
Agreed, if our IPR prevents people from discussing how XEPs could be modernized, we should adjust the IPR, not the discussion venue.
Dave's issue is probably that the outcome of such a discussion is potentially submitted and accepted into a XEP. And suppose later, a participant of that discussion claims part of the submission as his work, but is unwilling (or unable) to agree to XSF's IPR policy. In that case, the XEP could be viewed as tainted.
But I don't see how this is different if the discussion took place on a XSF mailing list (or even at the XSF summit). I don't remember agreeing that every idea I express on an XSF mailing list is automatically covered by the IPR policy when subscribing to the list.
Hence suggesting that such a venue requires XSF approval appears to me just inflicting unnecessary bureaucracy.
That said, I would welcome an XSF approved XEP Modernization Working Group (if there is enough interest).
- Florian
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
