On 3/11/09 9:18 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
> I didn't disagree with your
> vision. In fact, this idea of a collaborative, open, world-wide service
> sounds incredible, if you can pull it off and maintain five nines. :) I just
> don't think using the name "Jabber" is wise. A giant service nam
On Wednesday 11 March 2009 18:57:36 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Well, we have 400,000+ users of the jabber.org IM service. Shutting down
> the service seems unworkable. So the questions are:
Right, you wouldn't want to really remove it. Instead:
> 1. Do we turn off registration for new users and
On 3/11/09 5:25 PM, Xavier Maillard wrote:
> is this meeting open to public ? If so, I'll probably be there
> "to see".
Certainly it is. Please join us!
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_
On 3/11/09 2:05 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
> The big question of all is whether it is the job of jabber.org to compete
> with
> Skype. Aren't there others in this space already trying to do that? If
> jabber.org is truly competitive, and no longer a self-defeating reference
> service, is it
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Justin Karneges
wrote:
> First they visit the Psi website, then suddenly
> they are signing up for a jabber.org account... WTF? Seems shady.
>
> Speaking of "first they visit the Psi website", Christopher argued that users
> will start at the client, mainly bec
Hi Peter,
is this meeting open to public ? If so, I'll probably be there
"to see".
Xavier
--
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.april.org
http://www.lolica.org
___
JDev mailing list
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http:
Hi,
I have this vision for jabber.org services:
1. A clean and simple website with minimal text that will help end
users get started with Jabber.
Yeah. Less content but precious one.
3. Internationalized versions of everything so that volunteers around
the world can run sit
Hi,
On 3/10/09 5:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>1. A clean and simple website with minimal text that will help end
> users get started with Jabber.
>
>2. Web chat for a real-time window into one end-user chatroom and one
> developer chatroom (and perhaps one additiona
2009/3/11 Justin Karneges :
> The big question of all is whether it is the job of jabber.org to compete with
> Skype. Aren't there others in this space already trying to do that? If
> jabber.org is truly competitive, and no longer a self-defeating reference
> service, is it still fair to use the
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Well, imagine this situation: I send a presence with dnd. Then
> my client sets me auto away and later I return. So it sends a global
> available presence with no show. No peter seems me again. But I sent a
> directed presence because I
Justin Karneges a écrit :
> On Tuesday 10 March 2009 16:24:50 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> None of this would be exclusive. We'd still strongly encourage people to
>> run their own XMPP services and join the network. But we'd also work
>> hard to have worldwide coverage under the jabber.org ban
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 16:24:50 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> None of this would be exclusive. We'd still strongly encourage people to
> run their own XMPP services and join the network. But we'd also work
> hard to have worldwide coverage under the jabber.org banner.
This proposal reminds me of ou
Wednesday 11 March 2009 15:20:39 Nicolas Vérité napisał(a):
> You got now the "Join now!", but still no form ;-)
Based on my personal experience in promoting Jabber among my friends I'd say
that this button should not only create jabber account, but also give you a
download link to one client. P
It is unlikely that jabber.org (as a community run effort) could turn into a
consumer service that could take on Skype or Gtalk - and perhaps that shouldn't
be its purpose.
If the intent is to support XMPP - then there is a consumer service that uses
XMPP she could use- GTalk. There may be oth
2009/3/11 Remko Tronçon :
>> But all the past initiatives have failed to bring contributions...
>
> By the way, I think one of the most important parts of failure on
> jabber.org contributions is the fact that it was Wiki-driven. I agree
> that this is impossible to keep in sync, and I don't believ
> 1. Do not let the user choose between x clients. Jabber.org should have
> one default client for Windows/MAC users (Linux users are grown up,
> they already know how to choose stuff).
+1 on that.
> 2. The client must have Jingle support incl. Video
Sounds reasonable.
> 3. Userfriendly set
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed Mar 11 18:16:32 2009, Remko Tronçon wrote:
>> As a goal, this doesn't say much to the average user indeed.
>> However, you could swing it in a way that says "Connects/Works
>> with/... popular services such as Google Talk, Live Journal, ..."
>> Security could indeed a
On Wed Mar 11 18:16:32 2009, Remko Tronçon wrote:
> > We should be prepared to answer the question why Jabber? My
> sister has a
> > Skype account and her friends also have one. Why should she
> download
> > this Jabber thing? Don't answer with freedom and open -- that has
> no
> > meaning fo
> We should be prepared to answer the question why Jabber? My sister has a
> Skype account and her friends also have one. Why should she download
> this Jabber thing? Don't answer with freedom and open -- that has no
> meaning for the average user.
As a goal, this doesn't say much to the average u
On Wed Mar 11 18:00:08 2009, Dirk Meyer wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > For me the idea here is that jabber.org will be the
> community-driven
> > "running code" laboratory for the formal "rough consensus"
> technologies
> > produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation. The goal is to build
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> For me the idea here is that jabber.org will be the community-driven
> "running code" laboratory for the formal "rough consensus" technologies
> produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation. The goal is to build an open
> and distributed IM, presence, data, and VoIP service
On 3/11/09 11:41 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it's enough for now to figure out worldwide clustering of the
>> jabber.org address space and deployment of minimal xmpp services (not
>> hosting IM accounts) for bootstrapping of SOCKS5 and
On Wed Mar 11 17:39:27 2009, Pedro Melo wrote:
> The usual text applies I think: "Start talking now with our
> web-based
> chat, or download one of this applications for your PC/Mac".
It might be worthwhile jabber.org holding some kind of (regular)
competition in order to get a "blessed" Jabbe
On Mar 11, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 3/11/09 10:00 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
>>
> Or would @pt.jabber.org IM accounts exist also?
I'm not sure yet -- we're exploring this idea together. :)
>>> I wouldn't off
On Mar 11, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
>
>>
>> I think we all agree on the need for web-based registration.
>>
>> Web-based chatrooms are also great because they enable you to
>> participate and learn (e.g., join h...@muc.pt.jabber.org and get
>> assistance in your native langua
Am 11.03.2009 um 18:10 schrieb Dave Cridland:
No, you're signalling your availability to stpeter. That
availability is allowed to be different to your general
availability, this is true. And because of the interaction between
directed presence and the roster, things can get complicated.
I
On Wed Mar 11 15:59:11 2009, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Am 11.03.2009 um 16:50 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>
>> They are also how you join a MUC room.
>>
>> I suggest that we spend our time on more productive tasks than
>> getting
>> rid of directed presence or change presence subscriptions to
On 3/11/09 10:00 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
>
Or would @pt.jabber.org IM accounts exist also?
>>> I'm not sure yet -- we're exploring this idea together. :)
>> I wouldn't offer pt.jabber.org for IM accounts, exactly for the
>> reasons yo
>
> I think we all agree on the need for web-based registration.
>
> Web-based chatrooms are also great because they enable you to
> participate and learn (e.g., join h...@muc.pt.jabber.org and get
> assistance in your native language)
But why? Why would someone go to jabber.org in the first plac
Hi,
On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
>>> Or would @pt.jabber.org IM accounts exist also?
>> I'm not sure yet -- we're exploring this idea together. :)
>
> I wouldn't offer pt.jabber.org for IM accounts, exactly for the
> reasons you mentioned (you would have to migrate if you mov
Am 11.03.2009 um 16:50 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
They are also how you join a MUC room.
I suggest that we spend our time on more productive tasks than getting
rid of directed presence or change presence subscriptions to IQs or
whatever.
Uhm, if I'm not totally wrong,
away
to fake that I
On 3/11/09 9:54 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
>>> Or would @pt.jabber.org IM accounts exist also?
>> I'm not sure yet -- we're exploring this idea together. :)
>
> I wouldn't offer pt.jabber.org for IM accounts, exactly for the
> reasons you mentioned (you would have to migrate if you move somewhere
>
>> Or would @pt.jabber.org IM accounts exist also?
> I'm not sure yet -- we're exploring this idea together. :)
I wouldn't offer pt.jabber.org for IM accounts, exactly for the
reasons you mentioned (you would have to migrate if you move somewhere
etc.). Maybe I lack national pride, but I wouldn't
On 3/11/09 9:43 AM, Norman Rasmussen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
> mailto:js-j...@webkeks.org>> wrote:
>
> I'd like to bring up a topic: Directed presences.
> IMO, as they are now, they are quite useless. One might even
> consider that a bug in the RF
On 3/11/09 8:24 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
>> 2. One or more easy-to-deploy IM + media relay (+web?) server packages
>> so that volunteers around the world can quickly deploy services in
>> their
>> localities.
>
> why IM? media, socks, I get, but a IM server? Isn't the idea that we
> would sugge
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> I'd like to bring up a topic: Directed presences.
> IMO, as they are now, they are quite useless. One might even consider that
> a bug in the RFC :).
>
except, they're a part of how XEP-0100 works at the moment, or would you
enhance t
>> Wikipedia (and its syntax), thus a Medawiki-based place is an
>> excellent way to go.
>
> Wikipedia is the only wiki that works AFAIK, and that is because it
> has a huge amount of review. All other Wikis I have seen and used so
> far have failed, and caused more confusion and misinformation th
Hi,
On Mar 11, 2009, at 2:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 1. Strong user/admin/developer communities throughout the world so
> that
> we have a strong base of volunteers to help out.
This I get.
> 2. One or more easy-to-deploy IM + media relay (+web?) server packages
> so that volunteers a
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
> When I surf to jabber.org, I want to see a professional looking page
> with 2 things:
> - A 3-line explanation of what jabber is
Where is the text of the Drupal-based former website?
> - A button with "Join now", which creates me an account
> Wikipedia (and its syntax), thus a Medawiki-based place is an
> excellent way to go.
Wikipedia is the only wiki that works AFAIK, and that is because it
has a huge amount of review. All other Wikis I have seen and used so
far have failed, and caused more confusion and misinformation than
actuall
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
> All this can be avoided with one central 'jabber.org' service: you
> have a core team of people focusing on running an excellent XMPP
> service, and another team focusing on keeping the website up, and
> another team for the translations. Com
> But all the past initiatives have failed to bring contributions...
By the way, I think one of the most important parts of failure on
jabber.org contributions is the fact that it was Wiki-driven. I agree
that this is impossible to keep in sync, and I don't believe a
Wiki-based approach can work.
> Great but... who's the target? The client if you will? Because the pitch
> will be different if you're a CTO, a third-party service, a developer,
> some random user.
You are targeting normal users.
As Peter said, jabber.org will still explain the possibilities of
running your own server, but t
> As posted at my blog
>
> ***
>
> I have this vision for jabber.org services:
>
>1. A clean and simple website with minimal text that will help end
> users get started with Jabber.
>
>2. Web chat for a real-time window into one end-user chatroom and one
> developer chatroom (and perha
> True, but the contribution barrier is lower.
If that is true, then we just have to make the contribution barrier
lower. I don't expect the jabber.org site to be as dynamic as
Wikipedia, so I don't expect maintenance effort. And the maintenance
effort that is there should be made as easy as possi
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
>> We already have strong local communities worldwide that do an amazing job :
>
> I still think there's more value in making jabber.org a uniform
> service across international boundaries, the way Peter described.
But all the past initiatives
> We already have strong local communities worldwide that do an amazing job :
I still think there's more value in making jabber.org a uniform
service across international boundaries, the way Peter described.
Every local community doing its own thing is nice and fun, but it's
confusing to newcomers
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> As posted at my blog
[...]
I agree with most of the points, except:
> 3. Internationalized versions of everything so that volunteers around
> the world can run sites like de.jabber.org (Germany) and pt.jabber.org
> (Portugal).
48 matches
Mail list logo
