On Sat, 29 May 2021 at 16:10, Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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"? > > "Working Group" does have a particular meaning in the standards world, but I was more concerned with the "XSF" prefix, yes. Of course, anything where you've got a Capitalized And Organized Thing looks pretty official, but I'm concerned with whether a participant could reasonably assume it is a formal XSF activity. > > 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. > > It does not, and as noted, I didn't say the words in quotation marks. > 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. > > That, yes. I'd hope the problem - figuring out where the text came from and whether the author agreed to the IPR policy - would be spotted earlier than that, though, but that would just mean the contribution getting rejected, meaning lots of people have wasted their time. > 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. > > That is a whole other problem. The IETF does require you to agree to their IPR policies at both in-person meeting and when joining the mailing lists. We should probably do that as well, but for clarity, we do have an IPR policy, it is well documented, and we do explicitly require acknowledgement of it for XEP PRs. Note that the ideas you discuss on the mailing list or at the summits are not assigned, the assignment is on making them part of a XEP. The opacity I referred to in my other note was that on a mailing list, or at a summit, we have at least some record of where the text (or ideas) came from. > Hence suggesting that such a venue requires XSF approval appears to me > just inflicting unnecessary bureaucracy. > > Well, we can flip it around - if our existing discussion venues are insufficient, then that's clearly a bug, and how do we fix that? > That said, I would welcome an XSF approved XEP Modernization Working > Group (if there is enough interest). > > - Florian > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
