[Members] Google Summer of Code 2014 - Should the XSF Apply?

Arc Riley arcriley at gmail.com
Fri Nov 29 15:31:18 UTC 2013

We're in the same place as Twisted right now - we have XMPP services, our
project uses XMPP, we want to use XMPP more for developer collaboration,
but we're so rooted in Freenode that we would lose both developers and
users/promoters/fans in the process.

My proposal is purely XMPP S2S for a MUC service integrated with Freenode's
ircd.  That is - certain servers on their network would have S2S SRV
records published which allow XMPP users on other services to join IRC
channels as if they were connected to IRC.  Nickserv would still enforce
the way it always has, and XMPP users could either identify as they always
have or register their JID as always authorized to use their Freenode

I'm not proposing that Freenode offer C2S service or otherwise allow people
to use XMPP @freenode.net - of course they could do this with any off the
shelf xmppd.  There's little advantage to combining C2S with a MUC service
which would likely be run on its own muc.freenode.net and with its own SRV

Freenode's ircd is called ircd-seven and can be downloaded here -

You can see how its highly modular design permits adding additional
services like this, that was by design.

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Simon Tennant <simon at buddycloud.com> wrote:

> How is letting people join freenode chatrooms from their XMPP client
> different from an XMPP transport like spectrum?
> Is there really a demand from IRC people to talk to XMPP or is this a
> solution in search of a problem?
> S.
> On 29 November 2013 15:35, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Arc Riley <arcriley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Freenode uses their own IRCd with their own non-standards-compliant
>>> server to server protocol.  From my previous discussions with the
>>> developers they wouldn't want a 3rd party MUC service linking to their
>>> network because they'd lose direct control.  They'd want it directly
>>> supported by their servers running the same code so the same policies apply
>>> regardless to whether you're using IRC or XMPP.
>>> Freenode isn't EFnet, and yea Freenode isn't a "IRC network" in the
>>> traditional sense, its a network that happens to use IRC, and that's
>>> exactly why its a great target for XMPP.  Flip a coin, Rob Levin (lilo)
>>> could have just as easily picked XMPP MUC for the initial  deployment.
>>> While Rob is no longer with us, the people running the network do so in
>>> his vision.  I think we could do this.
>> I think that doing so could be very good for XMPP in general - projects
>> don't, currently, use XMPP, and I'm not really sure there's much better
>> reasoning that Freenode being good enough, and simple inertia. If we could
>> break that and lessen the cost of transition, it'd really help.
>> Opening up Freenode to XMPP-S2S would also be very interesting, too (ie,
>> letting people join Freenode chatrooms from their own XMPP account).
>> I'd be inclined to say that anything we (as in XSF) can do to work on
>> this would be worthwhile.
>> Dave.
> --
> Simon Tennant | buddycloud.com | +49 17 8545 0880 | office hours:
> goo.gl/tQgxP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20131129/242dfb77/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Members mailing list