[standards-jig] RE: LAST CALL: MUC (JEP-0045)
stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Nov 4 21:00:15 UTC 2002
Those are interesting use cases but I think they're somewhat specialized.
They could probably be done in an extended namespace implemented via an
in-room bot or a modified conferencing component. I would love to see
people offer add-on features like this but I'm not sure they belong in the
core MUC protocol. I know that Ryan and I have talked about building a bot
that would handle voting in a room, though we didn't around to it for the
most recent JSF election cycle. I would recommend using jabber:x:data for
that -- send the "ballot" to all the participants and they can fill it out
and send it back to the bot or the room.
Or so it seems to me. :)
Jabber Software Foundation
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, M.Eisenstadt wrote:
> I have two MUC user/moderator cases that I'd like to raise as 'food for
> thought': they arise surprisingly often in my educational context (e.g.,
> virtual classrooms), and although they can be handled with existing presence
> or even plain text message/bot tricks, there may be more elegant solutions
> lurking out there, hence this email...
> In a nutshell, the two specific cases are (i) synchronized countdown-timers
> and (ii) (nearly)simultaneous voting in a multi-user chat. The more generic
> issues concern, in case (i), timing, syncopating, or what I prefer to think
> of as 'metronoming' of group behaviours, e.g. 'Quiz 29 (or breakout session
> 3, or Battleship Game 9, etc.) will begin in 3:00 minutes, starting....
> NOW'. In case (ii), although of course users can vote by typing 'Y' or
> toggle their presence states to indicate (say) 'agreement', the generic
> issue has to do with conveyance of an expressive state that does not
> strictly belong to the domains of either 'presence' or 'text', and may
> therefore warrant some kind of 'channel' of its own to open up other
> comparable possibilities-- especially true if one wants a degree of
> parallelism in the 'votes', let alone the ability of (only) a moderator to
> 'clear' prior 'votes'. Voting is only one example: future possibilities
> will no doubt arise, and it would be nice to have less overloading of the
> text and presence capabilities by allowing this 'foot in the door', without
> opening up the floodgates!
> On the other hand rather than opening up kludge-y new channels and tricks,
> you may feel these cases are already catered for... yet I could only deal
> with these in my mind after looking at JEP 0045 by a bit of 'creative
> bending of the rules', so I thought it would be worth raising them before
> the Nov 11th 2002 deadline.
> Many thanks...
> Marc Eisenstadt
> Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, UK
> HOME OF OPEN SOURCE BUDDYSPACE = http://buddyspace.sourceforge.net
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards