5 ms·

Matrix is an open protocol[0]. It's not managed by the IETF, but it has an open process for submitting changes. See the Spec Change Proposal instructions[1]. [

Matrix is an open protocol[0]. It's not managed by the IETF, but it has an open process for submitting changes. See the Spec Change Proposal instructions[1]. [0]: https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/ https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/ [1]: https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/proposals/ https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/proposals/

prepend 5y ago
I read a bit about that and I think it’s positive, but a single company controlling a standard and considering changes is not the same as a protocol.
- roblabla 5y ago
  https://matrix.org/foundation/ https://matrix.org/foundation/ at the bottom of this page, you'll find the people who are actually in charge with accepting protocol changes (the Spec Core Team). It's true that most are part of New Vector, the for-profit company behind Element and Matrix, but Alexey Rusakov is not as far as I could tell. So there is at least one non-New Vector voice. It honestly feels pretty likely that this is just a maturity thing - as more products are built around Matrix, the Spec Core team will likely become more diverse.
  - joepie91_ 5y ago
    As I understand it, there's actually an explicit desire for more non-NV people to become involved with the SCT. There just aren't very many other organizations to fund it yet - SCT members need to eat too.
    - Arathorn 5y ago
      The situation here is that when we set up the SCT we deliberately picked a 50/50 mix of core Matrix team and community members. What we didn't anticipate is that the community members then were sufficiently sucked into Matrix that they were prepared to work on it fulltime, and a bunch joined Element as the only viable way to do so. Given the team is functioning pretty well and we're improving Matrix, it feels nuts to penalise people based on who they work for, hence the current blend.
remram 5y ago
That process seems to be "our company will decide what we want to do with our proposal"
- Arathorn 5y ago
  yup, much as the W3C and IETF "companies" decide what they want to do with proposals to their standards bodies. The Matrix.org Foundation is a non-profit foundation too.
  - Boulth6 5y ago
    I don't know why but comparing Matrix.org Foundation with standardization organizations such as IETF seems just not right. Maybe it would be more correct to compare Matrix.org with XMPP Software Foundation?
    - Arathorn 5y ago
      I'd genuinely be interested to know what the difference is between something like IETF / IEEE / ITU / W3C and a non-profit which was created as a standards body for a specific standard (e.g. Matrix.org Foundation or XSF). Is it just that you're recognised as a peer by the other long-established standards bodies? Or is there a standards-body-for-standards-bodies somewhere?
      - freeone3000 5y ago
        I mean, yes? The IETF has additional cachet as having created the internet. ITU and IEEE are international orgs relied upon not only by companies, but by governments. The W3C isn't as important as it once was, because people stopped listening to them (WHATWG is the new org). But I would trust the IEEE and IETF like I would the ISO, and Matrix.org as far as I would trust Microsoft.
        Arathorn 5y ago
        > But I would trust [...] Matrix.org as far as I would trust Microsoft. Ouch. Did you read https://matrix.org/foundation https://matrix.org/foundation or https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/matthew/msc1779/proposals/1779-open-governance.md https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/matthew/msc177...? I'd agree that skepticism was warranted if we hadn't split out the Foundation and the protocol was de facto controlled by Element. But instead we made damn sure to create the Foundation independently and frankly protect it from being sabotaged by Element or any other commercial entity building on Matrix. To suggest otherwise is pretty insulting to the other Guardians/Directors whose only role is literally to oversee and ensure that the protocol isn't sabotaged by commercial entities. This is very different from Microsoft's model.

prepend 5y ago

I read a bit about that and I think it’s positive, but a single company controlling a standard and considering changes is not the same as a protocol.

roblabla 5y ago
https://matrix.org/foundation/ https://matrix.org/foundation/ at the bottom of this page, you'll find the people who are actually in charge with accepting protocol changes (the Spec Core Team). It's true that most are part of New Vector, the for-profit company behind Element and Matrix, but Alexey Rusakov is not as far as I could tell. So there is at least one non-New Vector voice. It honestly feels pretty likely that this is just a maturity thing - as more products are built around Matrix, the Spec Core team will likely become more diverse.
- joepie91_ 5y ago
  As I understand it, there's actually an explicit desire for more non-NV people to become involved with the SCT. There just aren't very many other organizations to fund it yet - SCT members need to eat too.
  - Arathorn 5y ago
    The situation here is that when we set up the SCT we deliberately picked a 50/50 mix of core Matrix team and community members. What we didn't anticipate is that the community members then were sufficiently sucked into Matrix that they were prepared to work on it fulltime, and a bunch joined Element as the only viable way to do so. Given the team is functioning pretty well and we're improving Matrix, it feels nuts to penalise people based on who they work for, hence the current blend.

remram 5y ago

That process seems to be "our company will decide what we want to do with our proposal"

Arathorn 5y ago
yup, much as the W3C and IETF "companies" decide what they want to do with proposals to their standards bodies. The Matrix.org Foundation is a non-profit foundation too.
- Boulth6 5y ago
  I don't know why but comparing Matrix.org Foundation with standardization organizations such as IETF seems just not right. Maybe it would be more correct to compare Matrix.org with XMPP Software Foundation?
  - Arathorn 5y ago
    I'd genuinely be interested to know what the difference is between something like IETF / IEEE / ITU / W3C and a non-profit which was created as a standards body for a specific standard (e.g. Matrix.org Foundation or XSF). Is it just that you're recognised as a peer by the other long-established standards bodies? Or is there a standards-body-for-standards-bodies somewhere?
    - freeone3000 5y ago
      I mean, yes? The IETF has additional cachet as having created the internet. ITU and IEEE are international orgs relied upon not only by companies, but by governments. The W3C isn't as important as it once was, because people stopped listening to them (WHATWG is the new org). But I would trust the IEEE and IETF like I would the ISO, and Matrix.org as far as I would trust Microsoft.
      - Arathorn 5y ago
        > But I would trust [...] Matrix.org as far as I would trust Microsoft. Ouch. Did you read https://matrix.org/foundation https://matrix.org/foundation or https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/matthew/msc1779/proposals/1779-open-governance.md https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/matthew/msc177...? I'd agree that skepticism was warranted if we hadn't split out the Foundation and the protocol was de facto controlled by Element. But instead we made damn sure to create the Foundation independently and frankly protect it from being sabotaged by Element or any other commercial entity building on Matrix. To suggest otherwise is pretty insulting to the other Guardians/Directors whose only role is literally to oversee and ensure that the protocol isn't sabotaged by commercial entities. This is very different from Microsoft's model.