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

[Glen <[e-mail]>]

This seems good to me...

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]>
>>
>>
>