On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
As posted at my blog
[...]
I agree with most of the points, except:
3. Internationalized versions of everything so that volunteers around
the world can run sites like de.jabber.org (Germany) and pt.jabber.org
We already have strong local communities worldwide that do an amazing job :
I still think there's more value in making jabber.org a uniform
service across international boundaries, the way Peter described.
Every local community doing its own thing is nice and fun, but it's
confusing to newcomers
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Remko Tronçon re...@el-tramo.be wrote:
We already have strong local communities worldwide that do an amazing job :
I still think there's more value in making jabber.org a uniform
service across international boundaries, the way Peter described.
But all the
True, but the contribution barrier is lower.
If that is true, then we just have to make the contribution barrier
lower. I don't expect the jabber.org site to be as dynamic as
Wikipedia, so I don't expect maintenance effort. And the maintenance
effort that is there should be made as easy as
As posted at my blog
***
I have this vision for jabber.org services:
1. A clean and simple website with minimal text that will help end
users get started with Jabber.
2. Web chat for a real-time window into one end-user chatroom and one
developer chatroom (and perhaps one
Great but... who's the target? The client if you will? Because the pitch
will be different if you're a CTO, a third-party service, a developer,
some random user.
You are targeting normal users.
As Peter said, jabber.org will still explain the possibilities of
running your own server, but
But all the past initiatives have failed to bring contributions...
By the way, I think one of the most important parts of failure on
jabber.org contributions is the fact that it was Wiki-driven. I agree
that this is impossible to keep in sync, and I don't believe a
Wiki-based approach can work.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Remko Tronçon re...@el-tramo.be wrote:
All this can be avoided with one central 'jabber.org' service: you
have a core team of people focusing on running an excellent XMPP
service, and another team focusing on keeping the website up, and
another team for the
Wikipedia (and its syntax), thus a Medawiki-based place is an
excellent way to go.
Wikipedia is the only wiki that works AFAIK, and that is because it
has a huge amount of review. All other Wikis I have seen and used so
far have failed, and caused more confusion and misinformation than
actually
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Remko Tronçon re...@el-tramo.be wrote:
When I surf to jabber.org, I want to see a professional looking page
with 2 things:
- A 3-line explanation of what jabber is
Where is the text of the Drupal-based former website?
- A button with Join now, which creates
Hi,
On Mar 11, 2009, at 2:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
1. Strong user/admin/developer communities throughout the world so
that
we have a strong base of volunteers to help out.
This I get.
2. One or more easy-to-deploy IM + media relay (+web?) server packages
so that volunteers
Wikipedia (and its syntax), thus a Medawiki-based place is an
excellent way to go.
Wikipedia is the only wiki that works AFAIK, and that is because it
has a huge amount of review. All other Wikis I have seen and used so
far have failed, and caused more confusion and misinformation than
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Jonathan Schleifer js-j...@webkeks.orgwrote:
I'd like to bring up a topic: Directed presences.
IMO, as they are now, they are quite useless. One might even consider that
a bug in the RFC :).
except, they're a part of how XEP-0100 works at the moment, or
On 3/11/09 8:24 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
2. One or more easy-to-deploy IM + media relay (+web?) server packages
so that volunteers around the world can quickly deploy services in
their
localities.
why IM? media, socks, I get, but a IM server? Isn't the idea that we
would suggest
On 3/11/09 9:43 AM, Norman Rasmussen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
js-j...@webkeks.org mailto:js-j...@webkeks.org wrote:
I'd like to bring up a topic: Directed presences.
IMO, as they are now, they are quite useless. One might even
consider that a
Or would @pt.jabber.org IM accounts exist also?
I'm not sure yet -- we're exploring this idea together. :)
I wouldn't offer pt.jabber.org for IM accounts, exactly for the
reasons you mentioned (you would have to migrate if you move somewhere
etc.). Maybe I lack national pride, but I wouldn't
On 3/11/09 9:54 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
Or would @pt.jabber.org IM accounts exist also?
I'm not sure yet -- we're exploring this idea together. :)
I wouldn't offer pt.jabber.org for IM accounts, exactly for the
reasons you mentioned (you would have to migrate if you move somewhere
etc.).
Am 11.03.2009 um 16:50 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
They are also how you join a MUC room.
I suggest that we spend our time on more productive tasks than getting
rid of directed presence or change presence subscriptions to IQs or
whatever.
Uhm, if I'm not totally wrong,
presence
Hi,
On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
Or would @pt.jabber.org IM accounts exist also?
I'm not sure yet -- we're exploring this idea together. :)
I wouldn't offer pt.jabber.org for IM accounts, exactly for the
reasons you mentioned (you would have to migrate if you move
I think we all agree on the need for web-based registration.
Web-based chatrooms are also great because they enable you to
participate and learn (e.g., join h...@muc.pt.jabber.org and get
assistance in your native language)
But why? Why would someone go to jabber.org in the first place?
On 3/11/09 10:00 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
Or would @pt.jabber.org IM accounts exist also?
I'm not sure yet -- we're exploring this idea together. :)
I wouldn't offer pt.jabber.org for IM accounts, exactly for the
reasons you mentioned
On Wed Mar 11 15:59:11 2009, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 11.03.2009 um 16:50 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
They are also how you join a MUC room.
I suggest that we spend our time on more productive tasks than
getting
rid of directed presence or change presence subscriptions to IQs or
Am 11.03.2009 um 18:10 schrieb Dave Cridland:
No, you're signalling your availability to stpeter. That
availability is allowed to be different to your general
availability, this is true. And because of the interaction between
directed presence and the roster, things can get complicated.
On Mar 11, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
I think we all agree on the need for web-based registration.
Web-based chatrooms are also great because they enable you to
participate and learn (e.g., join h...@muc.pt.jabber.org and get
assistance in your native language)
But
On Mar 11, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 3/11/09 10:00 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
Or would @pt.jabber.org IM accounts exist also?
I'm not sure yet -- we're exploring this idea together. :)
I wouldn't offer pt.jabber.org for
On Wed Mar 11 17:39:27 2009, Pedro Melo wrote:
The usual text applies I think: Start talking now with our
web-based
chat, or download one of this applications for your PC/Mac.
It might be worthwhile jabber.org holding some kind of (regular)
competition in order to get a blessed Jabber.org
On 3/11/09 11:41 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
On Mar 11, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Perhaps it's enough for now to figure out worldwide clustering of the
jabber.org address space and deployment of minimal xmpp services (not
hosting IM accounts) for bootstrapping of SOCKS5 and TURN
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
For me the idea here is that jabber.org will be the community-driven
running code laboratory for the formal rough consensus technologies
produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation. The goal is to build an open
and distributed IM, presence, data, and VoIP service that
On Wed Mar 11 18:00:08 2009, Dirk Meyer wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
For me the idea here is that jabber.org will be the
community-driven
running code laboratory for the formal rough consensus
technologies
produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation. The goal is to build
an open
We should be prepared to answer the question why Jabber? My sister has a
Skype account and her friends also have one. Why should she download
this Jabber thing? Don't answer with freedom and open -- that has no
meaning for the average user.
As a goal, this doesn't say much to the average user
On Wed Mar 11 18:16:32 2009, Remko Tronçon wrote:
We should be prepared to answer the question why Jabber? My
sister has a
Skype account and her friends also have one. Why should she
download
this Jabber thing? Don't answer with freedom and open -- that has
no
meaning for the
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed Mar 11 18:16:32 2009, Remko Tronçon wrote:
As a goal, this doesn't say much to the average user indeed.
However, you could swing it in a way that says Connects/Works
with/... popular services such as Google Talk, Live Journal, ...
Security could indeed also appeal
2009/3/11 Remko Tronçon re...@el-tramo.be:
But all the past initiatives have failed to bring contributions...
By the way, I think one of the most important parts of failure on
jabber.org contributions is the fact that it was Wiki-driven. I agree
that this is impossible to keep in sync, and I
It is unlikely that jabber.org (as a community run effort) could turn into a
consumer service that could take on Skype or Gtalk - and perhaps that shouldn't
be its purpose.
If the intent is to support XMPP - then there is a consumer service that uses
XMPP she could use- GTalk. There may be
Wednesday 11 March 2009 15:20:39 Nicolas Vérité napisał(a):
You got now the Join now!, but still no form ;-)
Based on my personal experience in promoting Jabber among my friends I'd say
that this button should not only create jabber account, but also give you a
download link to one client.
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 16:24:50 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
None of this would be exclusive. We'd still strongly encourage people to
run their own XMPP services and join the network. But we'd also work
hard to have worldwide coverage under the jabber.org banner.
This proposal reminds me of our
Justin Karneges a écrit :
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 16:24:50 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
None of this would be exclusive. We'd still strongly encourage people to
run their own XMPP services and join the network. But we'd also work
hard to have worldwide coverage under the jabber.org banner.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Jonathan Schleifer js-j...@webkeks.orgwrote:
Well, imagine this situation: I send a presence with showdnd/show. Then
my client sets me auto away and later I return. So it sends a global
available presence with no show. No peter seems me again. But I sent a
2009/3/11 Justin Karneges justin-keyword-jabber.093...@affinix.com:
snip
The big question of all is whether it is the job of jabber.org to compete with
Skype. Aren't there others in this space already trying to do that? If
jabber.org is truly competitive, and no longer a self-defeating
Hi,
On 3/10/09 5:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
1. A clean and simple website with minimal text that will help end
users get started with Jabber.
2. Web chat for a real-time window into one end-user chatroom and one
developer chatroom (and perhaps one additional
Hi,
I have this vision for jabber.org services:
1. A clean and simple website with minimal text that will help end
users get started with Jabber.
Yeah. Less content but precious one.
3. Internationalized versions of everything so that volunteers around
the world can run
Hi Peter,
is this meeting open to public ? If so, I'll probably be there
to see.
Xavier
--
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.april.org
http://www.lolica.org
___
JDev mailing list
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Justin Karneges
justin-keyword-jabber.093...@affinix.com wrote:
snip
First they visit the Psi website, then suddenly
they are signing up for a jabber.org account... WTF? Seems shady.
Speaking of first they visit the Psi website, Christopher argued that users
On 3/11/09 2:05 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
The big question of all is whether it is the job of jabber.org to compete
with
Skype. Aren't there others in this space already trying to do that? If
jabber.org is truly competitive, and no longer a self-defeating reference
service, is it
On 3/11/09 5:25 PM, Xavier Maillard wrote:
is this meeting open to public ? If so, I'll probably be there
to see.
Certainly it is. Please join us!
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Wednesday 11 March 2009 18:57:36 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Well, we have 400,000+ users of the jabber.org IM service. Shutting down
the service seems unworkable. So the questions are:
Right, you wouldn't want to really remove it. Instead:
1. Do we turn off registration for new users and
On 3/11/09 9:18 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
I didn't disagree with your
vision. In fact, this idea of a collaborative, open, world-wide service
sounds incredible, if you can pull it off and maintain five nines. :) I just
don't think using the name Jabber is wise. A giant service named
47 matches
Mail list logo
