[Standards] Resurrecting Reactions
kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Dec 11 15:02:02 UTC 2019
(Various bits snipped)
On 10 Dec 2019, at 18:12, Jonas Schäfer <jonas at 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 .).
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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards