Subject: [Tools-implementation] Draft of message about chat trials

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:30:19 -0600

Do you think this is sufficient or do we need to take a different approach?

===========

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 [email-masked].

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.

Thanks again to the volunteers that have been helping configure these 
services and keep them going.

Robert Sparks, Tools Team Chair

---

From: Glen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 11:50:12 -0800

> 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--

> feedback at [email-masked].

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.

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.

> 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.  :-)

* 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

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:02:35 +1300

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 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 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 [email-masked].
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>> 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--
> 
> 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.
> 
> * 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.  :-)
> 
> * 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
[email-masked]

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:34:02 -0600

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

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 [email-masked].

While exploring, feel free to use the trial1-feedback room on Matrix and 
the trial1-feedback stream on Zulip.

=====

On 12/9/20 2:02 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
>> On 10/12/2020, at 8:50 AM, Glen <[email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>>> feedback at [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>.
>>
>> 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.
>>> 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--
>>
>> *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.
>>
>> * 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!
>> 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
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>
>

---

From: Glen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:10:20 -0800

This seems good to me...

Glen

---

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:36:07 +0000

> This seems good to me...

+1
> Tools-implementation mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-implementation
>