| 24 May 2025 |
 uep | (afaik this doesn't change for draupnir either, I think that was one of the things I looked for as differences) | 09:37:15 |
| uep | we'd need to run 2 instances or something | 09:37:29 |
| uep | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
ah. evergreen reaction | 09:38:13 |
 emily | I actually suddenly guessed that that was it right after sending my messages. | 09:38:31 |
| emily | the Matrix-understanding neurons in my brain fired belatedly. | 09:38:43 |
| uep | it's not even matrix specifically | 09:39:09 |
| uep | there's just no facility for room-specific policy in the protections | 09:40:21 |
 Gnuxie 💜🐝 | that's right, you'll also find the protections aren't amazing either | 09:44:31 |
| uep | At some point, we may end up with a setup that looks roughly like:
- nixos protected rooms inside a space, available to space members only, with one set of bot protections from one bot
- a "lobby" or other similar public room, where people can come to join the space, with more restrictive protections from another bot, and some way to get invited to the space after satisfying reasonable criteria
| 09:44:55 |
| uep | but.. ugh, there really should be a better way | 09:45:27 |
| uep | and it's not even clear to me that this will work reasonably for users unless more clients support spaces | 09:45:50 |
| emily | does Draupnir support per-room plicy? | 09:46:07 |
| emily | * does Draupnir support per-room policy? | 09:46:08 |
| emily | oh, I guess Cat implied no | 09:46:15 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
does Draupnir support per-room plicy? no | 09:46:22 |
| uep | nope. | 09:46:42 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | and it likely never will | 09:46:52 |
| emily | I think we can just point people to the entrance room on the website etc., and link to the space from that | 09:46:55 |
| emily | the space just acts like a room if your client doesn't support spaces, AFAIK | 09:47:03 |
| uep | part of it is simply that they store that config as custom events in a special admin room, but it's still just laziness in the implementation of that | 09:47:42 |
| emily | but also this sucks – people can join the unofficial Discords in two clicks. do we really want to cede the ground of a place people can actually quickly ask a Nix question to them? | 09:47:44 |
| emily | (I know we might have no better option for Matrix. I'm just saying, I feel like the asking-a-question-on-Zulip-from-scratch experience starts to look better.) | 09:48:04 |
| emily | ("Matrix federates so people can bring an existing account" – yeah but entering an email and password is less work than joining a lobby and asking to be let in!) | 09:48:23 |
| uep | all true | 09:48:36 |
| emily | (because of code architecture issues, or design decision?) | 09:48:46 |
| uep | as is the fact that any of this faff is letting the spammers win | 09:48:53 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | there's no "letting the spammers win" please stop. Yes Matrix is unsafe, yes the people making decisions were irresponsible and stupid. None of that is new and spammers didn't change it. | 09:50:43 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
(because of code architecture issues, or design decision?) both sort of | 09:51:02 |
| emily | well, letting them post CSAM is also letting the spammers win. we do have to respond in some form | 09:51:57 |
| emily | but I agree with what I think Gnuxie 💜🐝 means, which is that ultimately this is Matrix project failures | 09:52:09 |
