[sldev] Question: Replacing current group chat with XMPP?

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 2008-09-11, at 11:06, Robin Cornelius wrote:
> Is there then a call to have a different type of group. One that does
> not have chat associated with it.

That would be point 2 in http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-2818 .

An alternative would be to allow you to have an association with a  
group that doesn't include chat or any of the other high-impact  
features. There are a number of groups that I would like to "suspend  
membership" in without having to re-apply to rejoin.

See http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-1173 .

On 2008-09-11, at 11:45, David M Chess wrote:
> I take it that this is a problem we'd rather not reproduce, rather  
> than something that we want to make sure that an intragrid Group IM  
> system also does.  :)

It's just an indication that fairly high latency for starting a group  
conversation isn't automatically a fatal flaw. Certainly 10-20  
seconds latency is entirely acceptable.

> Given the number and volume of the voices I hear raised asking for  
> the limit to be increased, I think it's pretty common for people to  
> be in 25 groups, for whatever reason.  Not necessarily 25 groups  
> that really need a group chat channel, though.

That would be the point there.

I'd also like to note that person-person IM and group IM are  
generally different kinds of conversation, have different goals,  
anddon't need to share transport. For example, I could EASILY see  
logging in to IRC to get into a group chat without wanting to get  
into point-to-point chat with individuals, and vice versa.

Also, it would be nice to be able to log in to office hours with a  
client that doesn't require a wide open firewall.

Using open protocols for IM and group IM would allow me to run (for  
example) a shell IRC client or XMPP client on my colo server that I'm  
ssh-ed into. I can't see that happening with any likely Vivox-based  
client.