3 ms·

No, those are not the safeguarding positions; the Spec Core Team are the folks who approve PRs to the spec. Originally they were 50/50 element and non-element,

No, those are not the safeguarding positions; the Spec Core Team are the folks who approve PRs to the spec. Originally they were 50/50 element and non-element, although it's drifted thanks to members of the team choosing to work at Element so they can work on Matrix fulltime. The safeguarding positions are the directors of the Foundation (aka Guardians), which is very deliberately majority non-element (3:2). Why not spend your time improving XMPP rather than complaining about Matrix?

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
I'm criticizing matrix because it is a product of NIH syndrome [1] that should not have existed in the first place. If you wanted an open federated protocol, you could have spent your time adding to an existing federated network. Everything you do with matrix is easily possible with XMPP. Instead, you want a protocol fully controlled by you. I oppose this goal and spread of such products. And yes, I do spend all my time improving XMPP. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here
- soupbowl 5y ago
  XMPP failed for normal users. When I switched to matrix years ago it was because the XMPP ecosystem was totally inconsistent. The best client was on android but no desktop clients integrated properly with it (send files, encryption, roaming) especially across multi OSs. I moved to matrix in the early days and all those problems went way. What you see as NIH I see as building something from the ground up that works better than what was currently available.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    No. Matrix could just build Xmpp clients for all platforms consistently, and it would work out much better than building their own atrocious server. It is a very typical NIH-approach. Also, what you call a totally inconsistent ecosystem is what real ecosystem looks like. Matrix looks better in this regard precisely because it is not a protocol. It didn't yet deserve to have such problems. I also don't think it'll ever be able to successfully transition to a real ecosystem because Arathorn here always brushes off concerns about governance of the protocol, which shows that he doesn't have the mature understanding of the nature of the problem.
  - foresto 5y ago
    Unless something has recently changed, XMPP also failed on the server side for normal users: - Finding a practical provider is nearly impossible, because all of the major ones closed their public XMPP service years ago, and most people don't know what qualities to look for in a small provider, let alone understand why those qualities matter. - Even if they get help from a friend and manage to find a reliable server that supports the magic combination of XEPs that are needed to make things work, chances are that server is no longer accepting new users. - Even if they manage to get an account on a featureful[1], trustworthy, stable, free[2] server, many don't last more than a few years, so there is a high chance that the user's new online identity will evaporate before long. [1](Required features include end-to-end encrypted group chats with offline delivery, among other things.) [2](Yes, free. That is critically important for mass adoption today.) I'm not a normal user, in the sense that I have far more technical knowledge than most people who use messaging services. I actively used XMPP for at least a decade; probably closer to two. I tried last year to piece together an XMPP-based solution that my friends and family could use, but even I was unable to solve all the problems I found in a way that would work for normal users. And then there's the client side, which is also problematic, as soupbowl said. This has been the state of things for quite a few years. The only people I still see pushing for XMPP are people who have major blind spots. Some of them have experience only with small groups, and have not considered how a whole world of people conversing presents different challenges. Others (usually tech folks) have had a good XMPP provider and comfortable client software for so long that they have forgotten how much knowledge it takes to get set up in the first place. A few are people who run small for-profit XMPP services or develop XMPP software, aka conflicts of interest. Dear Jabber, I'm sorry. I liked you. I had high hopes for you. I might even still consider you for niche purposes. But as a general purpose messaging network for regular people, you have failed. It would take a lot of effort and resources to make you viable, and I don't see any sign of that coming. The closest you came was when Google and Facebook embraced you, but those days are long gone. Meanwhile, Matrix is succeeding. The rough spots are being fixed. The bloated clients are getting competition. The missing features are appearing. Even as a work in progress, it is already usable for some of us, and it's consistently moving in the right direction. Importantly, I can tell a regular person where to get it and (often with no help) they can be chatting with me in a few minutes.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

I'm criticizing matrix because it is a product of NIH syndrome [1] that should not have existed in the first place. If you wanted an open federated protocol, you could have spent your time adding to an existing federated network. Everything you do with matrix is easily possible with XMPP. Instead, you want a protocol fully controlled by you. I oppose this goal and spread of such products. And yes, I do spend all my time improving XMPP. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here

soupbowl 5y ago
XMPP failed for normal users. When I switched to matrix years ago it was because the XMPP ecosystem was totally inconsistent. The best client was on android but no desktop clients integrated properly with it (send files, encryption, roaming) especially across multi OSs. I moved to matrix in the early days and all those problems went way. What you see as NIH I see as building something from the ground up that works better than what was currently available.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  No. Matrix could just build Xmpp clients for all platforms consistently, and it would work out much better than building their own atrocious server. It is a very typical NIH-approach. Also, what you call a totally inconsistent ecosystem is what real ecosystem looks like. Matrix looks better in this regard precisely because it is not a protocol. It didn't yet deserve to have such problems. I also don't think it'll ever be able to successfully transition to a real ecosystem because Arathorn here always brushes off concerns about governance of the protocol, which shows that he doesn't have the mature understanding of the nature of the problem.
- foresto 5y ago
  Unless something has recently changed, XMPP also failed on the server side for normal users: - Finding a practical provider is nearly impossible, because all of the major ones closed their public XMPP service years ago, and most people don't know what qualities to look for in a small provider, let alone understand why those qualities matter. - Even if they get help from a friend and manage to find a reliable server that supports the magic combination of XEPs that are needed to make things work, chances are that server is no longer accepting new users. - Even if they manage to get an account on a featureful[1], trustworthy, stable, free[2] server, many don't last more than a few years, so there is a high chance that the user's new online identity will evaporate before long. [1](Required features include end-to-end encrypted group chats with offline delivery, among other things.) [2](Yes, free. That is critically important for mass adoption today.) I'm not a normal user, in the sense that I have far more technical knowledge than most people who use messaging services. I actively used XMPP for at least a decade; probably closer to two. I tried last year to piece together an XMPP-based solution that my friends and family could use, but even I was unable to solve all the problems I found in a way that would work for normal users. And then there's the client side, which is also problematic, as soupbowl said. This has been the state of things for quite a few years. The only people I still see pushing for XMPP are people who have major blind spots. Some of them have experience only with small groups, and have not considered how a whole world of people conversing presents different challenges. Others (usually tech folks) have had a good XMPP provider and comfortable client software for so long that they have forgotten how much knowledge it takes to get set up in the first place. A few are people who run small for-profit XMPP services or develop XMPP software, aka conflicts of interest. Dear Jabber, I'm sorry. I liked you. I had high hopes for you. I might even still consider you for niche purposes. But as a general purpose messaging network for regular people, you have failed. It would take a lot of effort and resources to make you viable, and I don't see any sign of that coming. The closest you came was when Google and Facebook embraced you, but those days are long gone. Meanwhile, Matrix is succeeding. The rough spots are being fixed. The bloated clients are getting competition. The missing features are appearing. Even as a work in progress, it is already usable for some of us, and it's consistently moving in the right direction. Importantly, I can tell a regular person where to get it and (often with no help) they can be chatting with me in a few minutes.