[Standards] Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: New MUC

On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 at 18:28, Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote: Not really, I used your definition, which you used to suggest GC3 was an XSF activity. Modern XMPP, jabber.org, and even Prosody are all worked on by XSF members, including at a sprint, and presented and discussed at an XSF summit. My argument was that that your definition was demonstrably incorrect since none of those are XSF activities; I didn't take anything to extremes. I didn't even pose a strawman. I did explain why each of your criteria were flawed both individually and as a whole, though, and since this was your argument for why GC3 is an XSF Activity, I felt that demonstrated that at the very least, if it is an XSF Activity it's not for the reasons you suggested. Anyway, if you still insist it's an XSF activity, it doesn't really change matters. Sure, I can concede that bit (though I think there's a strong argument to be made that it is a flaw in our IPR policy). I'll assume this is just a joke. Unless I've missed my reapplication window somehow. People have asked about GC3 both in the chatrooms and on this list and received no response. On this mailing list, Nicolas, Singpolyma and Goffi have been the only ones mentioning it, and only since September. Goffi explicitly asked you for an update, and there was no response. I have to say evidence is against your assertion there. In addition, other people have more generally mentioned new MUC features (including whole threads), and GC3 hasn't been explained in any of them. To be absolutely clear, I'm not suggesting you're doing anything wrong here. People get busy, life gets in the way, and this is all a volunteer thing. I have certainly dropped out for months at a time and been unresponsive. But having documents (if they exist) published, and discussions in the open, means that other people can (and have, thanks!) picked up work in my absence, and newcomers have joined, seen older dormant work, and raIsed it again. In other words, our way of working is resilient in the face of people getting busy, and that's an excellent reason to stick with it. Even when people pick up my dropped ball and throw it in a different direction to the one I expected. I didn't want to wait another 10 months, and also I didn't write the XEP without reviewing existing MUC options. In particular, I've spent roughly the past 3 years working with ejabberd's muc-sub, and MongooseIM's muclight, and I think I've a reasonable grasp of the benefits (and shortfalls) of both. I've also written a client, from scratch, partly in order to understand what the best practice was for MUC, and better understand its limitations with mobile. I have done my homework, though of course you may disagree with the result. Again, I have no visibility on GC3, and didn't actually think it was actively being worked on; there have been no status updates in well over a year, and there's no other suggestion of ongoing activity. You have the wrong impression. Certainly I think GC3 is outside of the standards process we have in the XSF, and outside of its venues for discussion, and I think that's a shame. I didn't think any specification existed, in fact I didn't think any work had been done for over a year. I assumed that if it were in good enough shape for a specification, one would have been written and submitted. I did ask you and Kev, back at the Summit in 2025, to publish a XEP of some form, and I think I asked you to raise it on the mailing list. The XEP I was told couldn't be written because there were too many disagreements about what it would contain. I have a vague recollection that it couldn't be discussed on the list for fear of overwhelming the list? In any case, I took this to mean it was to be done outside of the XSF for the time being. That's allowed, of course. Lots of things happen outside of the XSF. I do wish that some of them (including GC3, but also other things) were done within the XSF, but I lost those arguments years ago. But it does make it awkward to run things outside the XSF then argue that I shouldn't do something within the XSF as a result. Besides, standards work on XMPP outside of the XSF or IETF feels wrong to me - if it were anyone else, I'd find it outright suspect. I don't know where GC3 is being discussed (if it still is). There was a chatroom address on your presentation back in the Summit in 2025, but I definitely cannot recall what that was, I don't know where to find it now, and it has never been posted to this mailing list as far as I can find. As for the protoXEP, if you think it's missed things - and I'd readily agree - then pick out those specifics to the list. I appreciate this margin is too small to contain GC3, but if GC3 has something to offer at this point it'd be great to understand what. Personally, I agree. If I thought for a single moment I could write a successful MUC update/replacement of this magnitude on my own, I'd code first and XEP later. But I don't think I can do this alone, and so I'm drawing on the collective expertise. I already noted I don't think I've even got the requirements right yet. Where we disagree, I think, is how we get that expertise. I don't think we get it effectively by trying to assemble a team outside of the XSF (or alongside, or however you wish to put it). I think CG3 is, if anything, a demonstration of that not working. Again, I have reasonable confidence that the specification I've written is implementable. It's a conrete specification. It's probably not right - but I think it's got legs. and then completely ignored. I cannot ignore something I don't know anything about; please stop saying that, I've asked you already. The trouble with this argument is, in any case, that the very concept of GC3 actually slows things down. Of the four (!) mentions of GC3 on this list, two are discussing other work predicated on GC3. Progress is hindered by the threat of future conflicting work. It's like the dream of the perfect MUC replacement, it becomes the enemy of the good MUC replacement, or something. > >> So to answer Nicolas's question: they seem, needlessly, to be > >> different things at the moment. > > > > Please do take the time to explain why, and why your approach is better. > I don't especially have time right now (I literally have a child > pulling my arm as I type this). However I can dig up the relevant > links from the summit notes and post a new thread about GC3 shortly (I > don't particularly want to hijack this thread, which is probably best > reserved for feedback on the submission itself). Feel free to hijack this thread. I would be delighted to have my ideas shot down by something more sensible. I would happily incorporate them into the XEP, rename the thing to GC3, and hand the whole thing over and remove my name. Ideal outcome. And if you don't have time, that's absolutely fine too. I have had periods where I do not have time to read the mailing list, and missed people asking me things, and I do dimly recall when my children were young enough to drag me by the arm (and they're still able to distract me with parenting duties even now). This is a volunteer organisation, and must always take second place to actual life. I would caution, though, that everyone else does get to carry on without you. Dave.