Dear Schimon, Thank you for sharing your perspective. We all agree on the goal of increasing engagement and making XSF standards more user-focused. To move forward, we could try practical, low-risk steps, such as optional user-focused questions in Last Calls and open discussion channels.
I would also welcome any other ideas you have for achieving this goal, so we can find a solution that works for everyone. Kind regards, Guus On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 1:29 PM Schimon Jehudah <[email protected]> wrote: > Badri. Good afternoon. > > Thank you for responding. > > Please. Consider my conclusion. > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 15:41:30 +0530 > Badri Sunderarajan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > There's a lot happening in this thread, but I do like the general > > direction in which this is going. I have read the entire thread, > > though not watched the talk yet (I'm actually planning to listen to > > the audio, since watching videos for a long time tends to tire me > > more; I hope that doesn't cause me to miss out anything too > > important). > > > > Going back to Daniel's original idea: > > > > > This leads me to a question: Can we kill two or three birds with one > > > stone here? Can we either rephrase some of the questions in the Last > > > Call or add new ones that explicitly invite feedback from "civil > > > society" (for lack of a better word)? > > > > > > I just want to get the discussion started, so I don’t have a final > > > list, but the questions could go in a direction like this: > > > > > > * Would you use this feature if it were implemented in the XMPP > > > client you currently use? > > > * Do you think an implementation of this feature could negatively > > > impact your community? > > > * Does this improve (make easier) the work you do in your > > > community? > > > > I think these are questions that would certainly encourage more > > participation among people who are following the list without > > participating. (How to get more people reading them is a different > > matter). > > > > Personally, despite being an XSF member and also the developer of an > > XMPP client, I feel something of an impostor syndrome commenting on > > standards thinking that maybe I'm not well-versed enough. Strangely, > > I don't feel the same way about asking questions on the jdev MUC. > > This might be some kind of vicious cycle where only the most engaged > > people (and therefore the ones most well-versed in the technical > > internals) end up replying on the list, leading people to think that > > they have to be similarly well-versed, and therefore keeping silent > > while only well-versed people reply... > > > > Thank you for writing this. > > I think, that your statement may also be used to support my approach, > that there are already too many regulative layers in this XSF forum, be > these regulations optional or compulsory; these regulations distance > XMPP from more humans; and, humans, are those which, I think, that XMPP > was intended to serve. > > > One way to break out of this could be to make it clear that more > > basic questions along the lines of "Will this XEP let me X in my > > client?" or even "How exactly is this XEP going to be used?" are also > > welcome. Some very rough ideas are: > > > > * Do you have any questions about how this XEP could be used in > > practice? > > * Is there a feature you would like to see that you think this XEP > > could help with? > > > > And maybe a comment like "This XEP is a technical specification, but > > general non-technical discussion about how it would work are also > > welcome". If we have a template like this, it could be included at > > the bottom whenever a new XEP is announced on the list (we don't have > > to wait for the Last Call!) > > > > Regarding Schimon's reservations about the term "civil society", I am > > okay with choosing some other term that doesn't have the connotations > > described. I think the main aim is to find a word that means "anybody > > at all who might use XMPP, not just tech people". So let's try to > > brainstorm some ideas for that? > > > > The term itself is a term. It is not a problem. > > The problem is titling something. The problem is a jargon. > > I sense, that the word "inclusive" is a code-word to exclude people, > and what that title does, is inciting us against each other, be it > indians against white, whites against latinos, jews against muslims, et > cetera. > > > Example > ------- > > This is a perfect example of how "inclusiveness" is being subverted. > > > https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/woodpeckersnest.space/~schapps/journal/2025-02-07-the-conspiracy-against-free-software-and-telecommunication.gmi > > Mr. Esmail EL BoB, A Muslim Arab man, who I conversed many times, and > who is a very good man, even though he thinks many bad things about my > own society. > > However, he did nothing wrong, and he was harmed, and also everyone > else who advocate for freedom to humans. > > > Of note > ------- > > The actual term should be "common denominator", "cooperation", > "freedom" et cetera, to which we do not need to have a jargon. > > We only need to communicate. This is not something to even think about. > > > Experience > ---------- > > Pleaes. Do not mock me. I used to be very weird in the past. > > I did not curse nor insulted anybody. I was somewhat impolite. > > I do recall stating a curse at someone of "AradiRadio" (part of > AradiTracker), and I was asked by the chat administrator to behave. > > Now, I remember myself at the age of 19, when I first learned English > on my own (not that school), by participating in digital activities of > my interest; and I was a TERRIBLE communicator, using weird words, and > having a bad attitude, at sites such as Userscripts.or, Userstyle.org, > and The Portable Freeware Collection. > > Nevertheless, the more I FREELY conversed and argued with people, > without those contrived regulations, at which I misbehaved, then > gradually I BALANCED and improved my attitude; and every once or twice, > of every year, for a decade I read my past comments of last year or > years, and wondered how significantly terrible I was; and at later > years I wondered how improved I was in contract to the past. > > > To conclude > ----------- > > If the unnecessary document CoC (did you notice the sound of it?) and > the contrived doctrine of "inclusiveness" were introduced when I was > 19, then I probably would not be involved with XMPP, not even FFree > Software, and I would be utilizing proprietary operating systems. > > > Final notes > ----------- > > XMPP should be more free, more open to everyone. > > We do not have to have all the activities at a single hub. > > My intenton is not to overwhelm us. > > We can have obvious references over xmpp.or to direct people to > relevant communities. > > For instance, project postmarketOS has tens of IRC channels, each > dedicated to that which is relevant to a particular niche; and so we > should do with XMPP. > > We need to increase activity, engagement, and curiousity of the public. > > Afterwards, a discussion of more regulations, compulsory or optional, > might be needed, and to which I will probably still be against. > > > Post script > ----------- > > I will still be against, because those couple of standard entities > which Daniel has referred to are not open. They are closed, and are > blatantly infested with infiltrators. > > I therefore, do not want XMPP to also be closed, as more regulations > would retract from the public, and would make XMPP subjected to > sabotagers (i.e. moles) and infiltrators that would prevent progress. > > An infiltration, of sort, actually happened with three prominent > members of XSF; yet, I will not mention it in this mailing-list, > because it will not be respectful. > > We must not have more of it, if we do not want XMPP to lose its > relevancy. > > > I don't know the background behind the whole mailing list thing, but > > if it'll help reduce the barrier for people to post I can volunteer > > to reply with a few silly (or not) questions on the XEPs that come > > into this list ;-) > > > > Finally, in response to Dave's proposed questions, > > > > > Would it also be helpful to have a survey to find out why people > > > don't engage in Last Calls, why they wouldn't stand for Council, > > > and why they join (or don't join) the XSF? > > > > This sounds like a good idea too! If there are people with "impostor > > syndrome" like me, even posing the question could encourage them by > > letting them know that we /do/ want them to engage/stand/join. > > Through hanging out at various XSF MUCs, I've seen the sentiment > > passed around once in a while about wishing there was participation > > beyond just tech people (or often more narrowly just spec people!) > > but that's not something one can pick up by just browsing the XSF > > website a few times. > > > > Personally, the vague plan in my head was to start following the XEPs > > more closely first and then thinking of standing for Council. I'm not > > sure if that's how it's supposed to work. For Council specifically, a > > question that comes to mind is: since it's meant to be a vetting of > > the technical specifications, does it require people to be able to > > read and digest the entire spec? If so, that would require people on > > the Council to be at least somewhat comfortable with > > tech/programming. Or perhaps we are okay with Council members who go > > by discussing the functionality with others in the community and vote > > based on what they learn there? If the latter, that sounds like > > something which should be spelled out somewhere because by reading > > the lists today I'd assume it was the former. > > > > I think I'm starting to ramble so I will stop here :-) > > > > Looking forward to hearing what others think. And FWIW if it comes to > > a "figuring out what questions to ask and how to phrase them" session > > I'm willing to help with that! > > > > Best, > > Badri > > Best, > Schimon >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
