Le 28 août 2025 10:21:38 GMT+02:00, Guus der Kinderen <[email protected]> a écrit : >Moving away from GitHub will take a not-to-be-underestimated amount of >effort and dedication. A couple of years ago, there was an experiment with >moving away from GitHub to GitLab. Quite some effort has been put into >that, but in the end, it didn't take off. The remnants are still accessible >at https://gitlab.com/xsf > >My estimation is that we have less volunteer-resources available today. As >such, I don't see how we would realistically pull off a migration, let >alone start to maintain that new infrastructure. I'm happy to be proven >wrong. > >As I am skeptical that this will ever successfully happen, I urge Board to >find a compromise (with regards to Florian's -1 vote) to let the item under >vote pass. Please decouple the effort to improve the workload in existing >processes (which is taxing people that have been and still are volunteering >today) from a migration effort. One should not need to block the other. > > - Guus > >On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 8:51 AM Ralph Meijer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 28 August 2025 02:35:04 CEST, Elle < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >- The communications platform *is* apolitical. It does not distinguish >> between "bad" things (like enabling C&C systems for malware) and "good" >> things (like rapid triage of pressure sores). So people use it for both. >> > >> >We'll just have to agree to disagree here. My point about OMEMO is that >> the UK and a number of other countries have just passed legislation that >> aims to backdoor all E2EE communication platforms. Like it or not, refusing >> to backdoor OMEMO will become an explicitly political position, along with >> its current technical and ethical underpinnings. >> > >> >Regardless of its applied usage, the point is like you said for the >> server operators / protocol to be ignorant of the contents of E2EE >> messages. While there may be attacks outside the protocol, the XSF is >> entering into an ethical stance that it will not knowingly compromise the >> security of OMEMO. At least, I hope XSF makes this commitment."" >> > >> >The "Four Horseman of the Cryptocalypse" is a classic line of argument, >> I'm sure you're aware, used to strip people of their civil >> liberties/rights, in the name of the "good" guys protecting from the "bad" >> guys. >> > >> >My point is, XSF may be apolitical regarding the usage of the protocol >> (and I really question that), but the choices around infrastructure, Code >> of Conduct, Bylaws, software license, etc are all political-social-ethical >> choices at some level. Maybe not primarily, but at some level these choices >> have implications in those realms. >> >> First off, while the XSF is currently the major focus point of concerted >> protocol development for, and promoting the use of, XMPP, it is not the end >> all and be all of all things XMPP. The core protocols are defined over at >> the IETF, and you'll find it has a similar approach to try and keep its >> workings as neutral as possible. Also, the protocol *and* the community are >> intentionally distributedly extensible. That means that stuff can, and >> does, happen outside of the XSF. >> >> Second you are correct that nothing is absolute, including views on >> political, social, or ethical topics. My job as a director, and chair, is >> finding the delicate balance between the personal views of individuals in >> the XSF Membership and the XMPP community in general, and the stated goals >> of the XSF. Our mission statement (<https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/mission/>) >> is quite clear on the position the XSF takes. We also expanded this in our >> procedures (e.g. <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html>) and design >> guidelines (<https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0134.html>). >> >> Your concern with regard to OMEMO can be held to all those documents, just >> as I use them to guide my work as a director. Also note that we have >> already been the target of related pressure, and will continue to push back. >> >> Again I want to stress that the XMPP community includes people not just >> rooted in FOSS and its varied(!) political leanings, but equally from >> corporations, non-profits, education, government, supranational >> organisations, and military organizations. >> >> This all is why trying to elicit a specific response with the casual >> mentioning of a major geopolitical event is not helpful to me, and why I >> made the general stance on my approach. >> >> -- >> ralphm >> _______________________________________________ >> Standards mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>
As someone who sees moving from github as an action that would make the XSF process more robust, and less dependent on a corporate entity that I personally consider malignant at best, I believe we could only shift the process onto another service if: * someone (or several people) volunteers to migrate the tooling 1:1 to the new platform * board preemptively accepts that if those conditions are met and no new blocker is found, process can be moved * the platform is free to use for our use case, and for contributors as well * we have confidence the platform will continue to operate for a long time (OR/AND it is FOSS software that has several identical offerings on the web that we can move to effortlessy) As a middle ground for people who do not want to interact with github at all, something I can certainly understand, maybe a more reasonable task for a volunteer would be to build a bridge that replicates the xep repo and merge requests to allow them to contribute and -crucially- without giving more work to the editor. Mathieu _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
