| 19 Aug 2025 |
 Cat | I know Ubuntu are going to do all their upgrades via system account due to that. And it looks likely that Fedora will also take that same direction.
It wouldnt shock me if Nix will also end up doing that. | 12:58:23 |
 K900 | We already have an account like that and yes that would be the plan | 13:05:34 |
 @emma:rory.gay | opensuse will too, but most likely just using the Guard Geeko account | 13:07:36 |
| @emma:rory.gay | the upgrade isnt that worthwhile | 13:08:12 |
| Cat | The upgrade currently comes at too large a cost i would argue. | 13:11:32 |
| Cat | Considering not all the homeservers people currently run are on v12 support yet. | 13:11:48 |
| @emma:rory.gay | there's the version issue, but also continuwuity outright not having a release with v12 support at all yet | 13:15:12 |
|  ylagr joined the room. | 15:16:41 |
 Sandro | Already did that with all Hackspace rooms to have the power on one account for all existing rooms | 15:40:21 |
| @emma:rory.gay | im still holding off on room version 12 | 15:48:54 |
 Charles | i think i would say the vulnerabilities are, uh, underblown, and the efficacy of the mitigations are overblown | 15:52:12 |
| Charles | see also my comment here https://lobste.rs/s/1ghsju/project_hydra_improving_state#c_eayyqo | 15:52:44 |
 emily | "More generally, I think that availability of write nodes is actually an undesirable property for public rooms" 💯 | 15:54:22 |
| emily | they should really just add a room type that is "owned" by a homeserver | 15:54:48 |
| emily | I guess policy servers are basically this with extra steps or something | 15:54:56 |
 Gnuxie 💜🐝 | i think this comment is taken straight from a discussion we had a few days ago in matrix-spec and otherwise meow | 15:55:24 |
| Charles | i don't think policy servers are allowed to influence room state (i.e. membership) so not quite | 15:55:52 |
| Charles | i am not in the matrix spec room because it has been on room version FOUR forever | 15:56:34 |
| emily | someone keeps reverting it | 16:00:57 |
 @aloisw:julia0815.de | Probably would be a step in the right direction, but availability when the moderation bot is down is also bad. | 16:28:38 |
| emily | the homeserver can arrange to not have availability when the moderation bot is down | 16:29:05 |
| emily | so that seems fine | 16:29:15 |
| @aloisw:julia0815.de | True but at that point why have a bot at all instead of just baking a moderation interface in. | 16:33:52 |
| emily | well, you could do precisely that with a homeserver that owns a room, right? | 16:35:42 |
| emily | it would be authoritative for the room's state, so it can do whatever it wants | 16:35:53 |
| @aloisw:julia0815.de | Yes, that's a necessary but not sufficient condition. | 16:38:18 |
| emily | hm, what's insufficient about "the homeserver decides what the room state is and all changes are gated on it" to implement whatever moderation functionality you want? | 16:40:53 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | well a policy server is a way of doing that | 16:41:16 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | as for why | 16:41:17 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | it's because these are not things you can half ass after the fact | 16:41:25 |
