(Various bits snipped) On 10 Dec 2019, at 18:12, Jonas Schäfer <jo...@wielicki.name> wrote: > So... Uh. My problem with this situation is, that we’re in an awful > stalemate. > We have the suggestion by Kev on how to do the message fastening stuff, we > have the Attaching XEP (which Sam says could also be used for this type of > stuff) and we have References (which I think we can all agree isn’t really > suited as *baseline* for MAM-collation because of being to complex. Also has > unaddressed on-list feedback [1].).
The path forward here, at least, is clear - last Council we discussed whether we wanted to use Attachments (despite at the time the belief that the Author didn’t want it used/adapted for these uses), use Reactions or write a new Fastening XEP very similar to Attachments, and Council’s opinion was that Fastening was the right thing to do. As I said at the time, I didn’t mind whether it was Fastening on Attachment, but that we should decide, and we did. I think revisiting this is the least sensible of the possible uses of our time, although others may disagree. > Fastening seems to be stuck still (no > apparent progress, not even an Ack on-list, since Kev noted last week that > there was feedback he missed). > > We have the ProtoXEP which would solve the problem *right now*, although not > in an ideal and future-proof way. I’m not sure this is true, or at least depends heavily on your interpretation of ’the problem’. > 2. Diagnosis on the current state of the XMPP Community <snip/> I’m sure this as fun discussion, but I think it’s tangential here. > # 3. Diagnosis and Rationale for Reactions at the moment > > We have client developers who want to move forward with reactions, and we > have > users who want reactions and we even have Council members who want reactions. Including, it must be said, me. I want reactions, and I have every intention of trying to get it into Swift as soon as I reasonably can, once we’ve got a suitable XEP. (Equally, I have no wish to implement it twice, once to implement an interim XEP, and once for a long-term XEP) > But for some reason, we can’t get there. Obviously, nobody wants to mess with > Kevs ProtoXEP (though nobody has asked for taking it over either). I suspect the same reason most things don’t get done. We have limited time and it’s easier for someone else to do the work (the same reason that from the start I offered to make the needed changes to Reactions. > I think at the same time we need to acknowledge that the authors of Reactions > are also volunteers whose time and motivation is being burned away here. Indeed, see above. >> I'm obviously keen that >> we can unblock this conversation again and seek some constructive progress. > > Yes, but how? > > So my questions for discussion are: > > - Kevin, can you give any timeline on if and when you will be able to > incorporate or at least discuss feedback on Fastening? Assuming nothing interrupts me, when I’m done with replying to this epic, the next emails in my stack are the feedback. > - If you (Kevin, again) can not give that, or the timeline passes because > life > happens, would you be happy to hand the ProtoXEP over to the Reactions folks > if they are interested? I do not like this solution for multiple reasons, one > being that I was (and still am) firmly against pushing the work of inventing > a > MAM-collatable protocol for MAM usage which doesn’t even exist yet on the > shoulders of the Reactions authors. I hope this to be irrelevant. /K
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
