[Standards] Resurrecting Reactions

Kevin Smith 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 [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

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...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20191211/fe124972/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list