Re: [Tools-implementation] 2nd iteration: Re: Draft of message about chat trials

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020, at 6:10 PM, Glen wrote:
> This seems good to me...

+1
> 
> Glen
> 
> On 12/10/2020 06:34, Robert Sparks wrote:
> > I've tried to worked the spirit of Glen's suggestions into the text, and 
> > aimed people at some specific resources on matrix and zulip
> > 
> > Some inline comments at the end.
> > 
> > ===========
> > 
> > To: ietf-announce
> > 
> > Subject: Next steps: chat service trials
> > 
> > We have been running trial zulip, matrix, and xmpp services since October.
> > See
> > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-announce/?q=%22trial%20chat%22>
> > 
> > As noted in those announcements, the issue that we are trying to address 
> > is the difficulty people have been reporting obtaining jabber services 
> > and clients. We are hopeful that these trials will help the community 
> > develop a better sense of whether to focus on improving the experiences 
> > with xmpp or to pursue other chat solutions. We are also open to the 
> > possibility that these other solutions may be worth operating in 
> > addition to improving the experiences from xmpp.
> > 
> > However, usage and feedback so far has not been sufficient to inform 
> > what services we should run in the future.
> > 
> > We had around 50 local jabber accounts created on xmpp-trial1.ietf.org, 
> > and around 40 accounts were created on each of the matrix and zulip 
> > services.
> > Few rooms have been created on the matrix service other than those 
> > bridging to xmpp.
> > Few streams were created on the zulip service other than those bridging 
> > to xmpp and those ingesting a few mailing lists.
> > 
> > We are not aware of anyone trying to use the zulip or matrix servers for 
> > ietf work outside the main meeting.
> > 
> > If you've used the services, please take a few minutes to provide 
> > feedback at [e-mail].
> > 
> > Is providing local jabber accounts and a web interface to jabber sufficient?
> > Are there features that matrix or zulip provide that are truly helpful 
> > for progressing IETF work? If so, please describe how they are helping.
> > 
> > To collect more feedback, we are planning to extend the trials through 
> > IETF 110. Please take advantage of these services between now and then 
> > (at interim meetings for example) and let us know what you find to be 
> > effective.
> > 
> > If you are interested in using these services more directly for your 
> > group's day-to-day communication, and are willing to test one or both of 
> > these services on a primary basis for a while, please coordinate with 
> > the appropriate leadership and let the tools team know so we can help 
> > accommodate.  Please consider using these services for ad-hoc, 
> > design-team meetings, and even interims (again, coordinating with the 
> > appropriate leadership).
> > 
> > If you have had issues using Jabber in the past, please take some time 
> > now to work with these new services and describe whether they improve 
> > your experience.
> > 
> > We need more feedback about these services to develop a sense of what 
> > will best meet the community's needs going forward. Please engage in 
> > exploring and discussing them at [e-mail].
> > 
> > While exploring, feel free to use the trial1-feedback room on Matrix and 
> > the trial1-feedback stream on Zulip.
> > 
> > Thanks again to the volunteers that have been helping configure these 
> > services and keep them going.
> > 
> > Robert Sparks, Tools Team Chair
> > 
> > =====
> > 
> > On 12/9/20 2:02 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
> >> I’m too busy right now to give detailed feedback but I like all of 
> >> Glen’s suggestions.
> >>
> >> Jay
> >>
> >>> On 10/12/2020, at 8:50 AM, Glen <[e-mail] 
> >>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 12/9/2020 11:30, Robert Sparks wrote:
> >>>> Do you think this is sufficient or do we need to take a different 
> >>>> approach?
> >>>
> >>> Might I suggest one potential add:
> >>>
> >>> Truncating for focus.... maybe between these two sections add 
> >>> something like:
> >>>
> >>> --snip--
> >>>
> >>>> We are not aware of anyone trying to use the zulip or matrix servers 
> >>>> for ietf work outside the main meeting.
> >>>> If you've used the services, please take a few minutes to provide 
> >>>> feedback at [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>.
> >>>
> >>> If you are interested in using these services more directly for your 
> >>> working group's day-to-day communication, and are willing to test one 
> >>> or both of these services on a primary basis for a while, please let 
> >>> us know so we can help accommodate.   We especially encourage 
> >>> leadership teams, and groups with an interest in remote 
> >>> participation/communication to get involved here.
> > I think we directly approach the IESG, IAB, IRTF chair, and manycouches 
> > (which is the shmoo list) with followup messages.
> >>>
> >>> If you are one of those who has had, or has reported, issues using 
> >>> Jabber, please take some time now to work with these new services and 
> >>> help the IETF help the community.
> >>>
> >>> The more usage and exposure these services get, the better informed 
> >>> the IETF's future planning will be.
> >>>
> >>>> Is providing local jabber accounts and a web interface to jabber 
> >>>> sufficient?
> >>>> Are there features that matrix or zulip provide that are truly 
> >>>> helpful for progressing IETF work? If so, please describe how they 
> >>>> are helping.
> >>>
> >>> --snip--
> >>>
> >>> My thoughts just for this list (and its public archive):
> >>>
> >>> I feel like we don't want to just be observers here.  We've all heard 
> >>> *repeated* complaints about Jabber.   I like Jabber, but, really, 
> >>> we've gotten complaints, and here we're trying to solve issues, and 
> >>> we've had...  37 people participate.
> >>>
> >>> I feel like we should encourage, even *prod*, the community to work 
> >>> with these new services (including the new Jabber client services) 
> >>> and really get involved in this process.
> >>>
> >>> And there are some obvious candidates for these things:
> >>>
> >>> * We should encourage the IESG, IAB, IRTF leadership teams to get 
> >>> involved.  Not to mention the Tools Architecture Team, and even the 
> >>> larger Tools-Discuss team.
> >>>
> >>> * We should encourage the XMPP, SHMOO, MANYCOUCHES, and any other 
> >>> such groups to get involved.
> >>>
> >>> * We should encourage anyone currently using IETF Slack or other 
> >>> alternative channels.
> >>>
> >>> * We should encourage the team members for each of the three 
> >>> protocols (i.e. the people who set up Prosody/EJabberd, Matrix, and 
> >>> Zulip) to step up and help us encourage participation.
> >>>
> >>> * Because Matrix has active attention from its developers, I have 
> >>> been hanging out on Zulip, I'd like to make an Implementation stream 
> >>> there and see if I can get the six of us involved.  :-)
> > Sure!
> >>>
> >>> * We should make clear that if people want positive change, they need 
> >>> to get involved.
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise, a less-informed decision will be made, and the community 
> >>> will be less-happy.
> >>>
> >>> You obviously don't need to use my words, or even any of this, this 
> >>> is just feedback.  The IETF needs some visible guidance and reminders 
> >>> to get involved here, and I think that falls to us.
> >>>
> >>> Glen
> >>>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Jay Daley
> >> IETF Executive Director
> >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Tools-implementation mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-implementation
>