If someone creates a community for their XMPP project, that should obviously be allowed. But what about tangentially related technologies or XMPP-focused general discussion communities? Eg. would an IETF KITTEN Working Group community be disallowed because it’s not specific to XMPP (not that they’re likely to create a group, I was just trying to think of something tangentially related)? What about a group to discuss XMPP Security or XMPP UX that’s not specifically tied to a project or group? It may be worth us developing a policy on this early on to stop conflicts before they arise and to stop having to grandfather in to many groups if we decide later that they’re out of scope.

    • SamOPM
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Yah, I tend to agree that general purpose rooms are good; I’ll be curious if anyone has reasons not to though.

  • SamOPM
    link
    fedilink
    22 years ago

    Third thing that might be worth thinking about: do we allow “unofficial” communities. Eg. if someone who’s not a Gajim author or maintainer or what not wants to come along and make a /c/gajim, do we allow it? Do we require it to have “Unofficial” or similar in the display name?

      • SamOPM
        link
        fedilink
        02 years ago

        That’s a fair point; it’s for discussion whether it’s an official venue or not and in general there’s no reason it should have better discussions just because a core contributor created it. I’m convinced. I’ll be curious to see if anyone else has counter arguments.

        • SamOPM
          link
          fedilink
          02 years ago

          Although if the official project author shows up later I can see it being weird that they’re not a mod; no reason why they should be, I suppose, but some people would expect to be an mods over a place a community they’re a leader of is gathering. I suspect that the original creators would make them mods, but I could see it being a source of conflict too.

          • @MattJ@community.xmpp.netM
            link
            fedilink
            02 years ago

            Someone created a couple of subs on Reddit for some XMPP projects I develop. I’m now in a situation where I don’t have full control over those, and therefore don’t want to promote them as official venues for the project. That leads to me not posting to or participating in them.

            This kind of situation would be prevented by an “official-only” rule, or at least to give the project developers first refusal if someone wants to create a community for a specific project.

            • SamOPM
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              I don’t know if a right of first refusal is a good idea just because the project maintainers won’t be able to police ever place users want to congregate. Eg. if users create a Telegram or Signal group chat about Prosody (that would be weird, but whatever it’s just an example) it would be a bit odd if the maintainer could shut that down; it’s just people chatting, after all. Similar logic applies here, in my mind. That being said, I wouldn’t want to get in a position where if the maintainer does want some official community space they have control over they end up creating a competing one here. Maybe we should moderate this on a case-by-case basis? Eg. if a project is created, the maintainer shows up and asks to be added as a mod, hopefully they just do it and if not we sit down and talk through why and if we still can’t come to an agreement only then do we make two groups and let the community decide? I don’t think we want to be in a position of verifying that project spaces are official either, but that is an alternative that might work.

              • @MattJ@community.xmpp.netM
                link
                fedilink
                02 years ago

                To be clear, I’m not saying the project owner can shut anything down. Giving them first refusal just means that if someone wants a Prosody community, we first notify the Prosody developers to see if they want to lead that community. If they’re not interested and they decline, we grant ownership to the community member that requested it.

                • SamOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 years ago

                  Ahh, fair enough; I could go either way on that one, but it does make more sense to me. I think the same logic applies though: the prosody developers wouldn’t necessarily be better stewards than a user, and if users make some other kind of group the prosody developers wouldn’t necessarily be able to excersize control over it. That’s not to say that our position can’t favor “official” project groups, I just can’t figure out if it’s a good idea or not.

            • SamOPM
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              I am curious if you reached out and asked to be made a mod on the subreddits and what the result was? Did they have a reason for denying you?

  • SamOPM
    link
    fedilink
    22 years ago

    Also: should we require applications to create a new community? If spam becomes a problem this is an option, but someone else suggested it might be worth while just to have a higher quality list of communities. We should decide how we’re going to handle this.

    • @MattJ@community.xmpp.netM
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      In general I lean towards being more careful about community creation, especially as we find our feet. I’m fine with tangential stuff that doesn’t have a better home, but would certainly draw the line before general topics (memes, gaming, politics) for many reasons.

      I agree that not having to wade through loads of stuff to find genuine XMPP communities here would be good, and to me that’s kind of the entire promise and purpose of this instance.

      • SamOPM
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Good points; this is roughly what I was thinking too and sounds good to me.

  • @pep@community.xmpp.net
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    I’m wondering what to do with other languages? I’d like not to shutdown attempts at creating language-specific communities. Is this something that we want to manage on this instance?

    • SamOPM
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Seems okay to me, but I’d bet existing ones are already established and probably other instances will have a wider user base. But I don’t see any reason to forbid it, personally.