[JDEV] groupchat <presence/> behaviour??

[David Sutton]

Hi there,

On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 02:38:04AM +0200, Heiner Wolf wrote:
> Lars Kaufmann and I have an eye on it. Lars commented a few times. He is
> the moderated groupchat person here. I think our main concern is that we
> do not see the point in a fixed role hierarchy. Currently our roles are
> attributes of the user and a user can have multiple attributes. 
>
If this was only going to apply to groupchat, I could see why multiple
roles might not make sense. However, we have a number of areas which
this jep can/should impact. Most personally to me is the IRC-Transport.
The role system would fit with the basic irc model as well, so I can
utilise it for both.

Do you have any other comments regarding it? I'm currently in the middle
of coding an implementation of the new conference service, so any input
is greatfully received.
>
> The features of attributes/roles do not collide, so there is no problem
> having multiple roles. Of course there are not yet many combinations
> which make sense in the real world, but
> 1. there are and 
> 2. who knows. 
> 
> Example: user is admin and moderates and is invisible
>
The current concept is that each role level has the abilities of the
levels below it plus its own abilities. 

This is my present view on how things may develop in the future.

* There are two types of attribute - fixed and floating.
- Fixed attributes are the ones locked to a role, i.e. the ability to
  add an admin is a fixed attribute to the owner role
- Floating attibutes are the ones which you may wish to grant to someone
  of any level, such as invisibility.

You end up with an easily understandable heirarchy, yet also having the
flexibility to extend. Does that make any sense?
>
> Example: a user is admin of another channel and visitor. So he has an
> icon which shows him as important (because he is admin somwhere else)
> but still can not say anything, because he is only a listener here.
>
Well, surely in this case, you'd prefer multiple icons, even if they
were similar, so you could tell the difference? You're going to have to
send a presence packet to each room individually anyway. 
>
> There might be more user features/behaviours which you want to control
> by attributes/roles than what the you can do with the fixed hierarchy of
> roles. Of course you can control things like visibiliy differently, but
> since the attributes/roles are there, why not use the mechanism for more
> than floor control. 
>
Mainly because a fixed structure is easier for a user to understand.
Saying that xyz is an admin means more to a user as they know that an
admin can do certain things. Saying xyz can do a, b and c is more
confusing, as there becomes little to differenciate one user from
another. The idea I talk about above gives a tight core, yet still
having flexability.
>
> Other point is just about naming: The owner/admin terminology comes from
> ICQ. But I would rather like the owner to be the one who owns the room
> and creates admins. Admins the ones who control the room and create
> moderators. Moderators the ones who moderate the room.
>
Actually, the names where chosen more because they fitted the way the
role was supposed to be. The aim was for user clarity.
>
> So basically one level more with moderators moderating ad administrators
> administering. The owner is usually not involved actively as a chatter.
> That is usually the company which owns the server and configures the
> room, so that the room knows the admin. 
>
How do you perceive the role of 'moderating' I think we need a firm
definition here before any discussion should go ahead, otherwise we run
the risk of talking about different aspects of the same concept.

The owner could also be a 'ChanServ' bot, able of auto-admin and
auto-moderator. I'm already planning some code for this area.
> --
> Dr. Klaus H. Wolf
> bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
> http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw
> +49 (0721) 16108 75
> 
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: David Sutton [mailto:jabber at dsutton.legend.uk.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2002 01:49
> An: jdev at jabber.org
> Betreff: Re: [JDEV] groupchat <presence/> behaviour??
> 
> 
> Hello there,
> 
>   As you may have seen, there is a lot of work currently underway on
>   JEP-0045 ( http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0045.html ) - why not look
>   at that as i'm already seeing some overlap occuring, especially
>   regarding user role.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   David
> 
Regards,

  David
-- 
David Sutton
Email: dsutton at legend.co.uk
Jabber: peregrine at legend.net.uk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/attachments/20021008/ae06f772/attachment-0002.pgp>