I think an open source project is more scalable and reusable than a proprietary one, but if the goal is long term communication among diverse users, then using a protocol is good.
Ouch. Did you read https://matrix.org/foundation or https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/matthew/msc177...?
I'd agree that skepticism was warranted if we hadn't split out the Foundation and the protocol was de facto controlled by Element. But instead we made damn sure to create the Foundation independently and frankly protect it from being sabotaged by Element or any other commercial entity building on Matrix. To suggest otherwise is pretty insulting to the other Guardians/Directors whose only role is literally to oversee and ensure that the protocol isn't sabotaged by commercial entities.
This is very different from Microsoft's model.
IETF is one of the best standardizing organizations out there, I'll certainly give you that. They have fairly transparent process, and a really good track record when it comes to creating robust protocols.
Thing is, I don't see why Matrix.org would have any more or less "cachet" than WHATWG, or Khronos Group. In the end, the identity of the standardizing org doesn't really matter too much. What matters is that the incentives of the standardizing org are aligned with those of the community.
It honestly feels pretty likely that this is just a maturity thing - as more products are built around Matrix, the Spec Core team will likely become more diverse.
Speaking in a strictly personal capacity, I don't think that point can be taken for granted. The W3C's missteps with HTML5, and WHATWG's success, is a particularly notable failing of a dedicated standards body. The Rust programming language is also developed and codified outside of a traditional standards organization.
There's a reason why eg. the WHATWG exists, basically.
Also, rapid development has its own set of problems as we've seen with XMPP (where no two clients support the same set of features because new ones are being developed to keep up with various proprietary things all the time).
Anyways, point is, don't reinvent the wheel, I'm sure one of the standard bodies could have been a good fit if we needed this at all, but Matrix definitely isn't a good fit for this Freenode replacement and this is one of the reasons why (the other is that Freenode works just fine and the point is that this is a drop in replacement).
This is just false. Speaking as co-founder and project lead for Matrix, it's been the same team all along since we began in 2013. We were incubated until 2017 in a company which never tried to monetize the protocol, and then we span out to set up Element (formerly New Vector) where we keep the lights on by selling Matrix hosting and support/consulting.
At the same time we set up The Matrix.org Foundation as a non-profit neutral standards body, with an independent board where the original founders are deliberately in the minority - and when we set it up, half of the spec core team were independent of Element too. (This changed as folks on the team opted to join Element so they could work on Matrix fulltime).
Rather than spreading FUD about Matrix, why not collaborate and work together? Or at least spend the energy on improving XMPP rather than negging us...
Is there a place with this history or the governance structure that people can link to the next time this comes up?
You're trying to moderate discussion that you don't like, because it's not about IRC. Matrix is relevant in a discussion about IRC because it's a valid alternative. You can't police natural and useful discussion you don't like.
All that being said, you're right, I shouldn't get drawn in every time this person (whom I've just realized is the same person who goes by another name elsewhere) jumps in on every chat across the internet trying to advertise their product. My own fault for getting drawn in and using language like "hissy fit" that is, as you said, unreasonable. I'm sorry about that.
We're all only human.
Thank you for working on XMPP
Who decides when a standards body is real?
I think IETF is a good example of how anyone can propose standards on a plethora of topics. When they were very young it was hard to trust but now they are decades old with hundreds of standards demonstrating how easy it is to propose and work on new standards. Maybe even the “gold standard” of standards bodies.
Single standard organizations created by the dev group are just naturally biased certain ways.
I don’t think there’s a single perfect body, but it’s definitely curious to me why someone would start a stand-alone foundation rather than use w3c, ietf, or others that seem to work pretty well.
I also judge the number of different clients and servers implementing the spec for whether it’s real or just a controlled intermediary. Sun/Oracle seemed pretty bad about this back in the day with JSR stuff although I haven’t paid attention in 10 years.
Projects can make their own choices and set up foundations if they are willing to fund and monetize, etc. But that stuff isn’t as robust as IRC or protocols that have independent standards bodies.
Seems like there are lots of different clients [0] and a couple of different servers [1].
The idea of a single dev team being VC funded means that there’s a drive to monetize. That’s bad pressure on a protocol and one that doesn’t exist for IRC and other protocols. There’s multiple members in the matrix foundation and that helps but there’s just not much diversity of interests.
Again, not the end of the world, and the project seems to me to be going to great lengths to collaborate. But I feel the same way as if Microsoft started up an independent foundation to drive development of the Skype protocol. Good on them, but it’s not as robust as an independent protocol.
[0] https://matrix.org/clients/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(protocol)