| 18 Jul 2025 |
 emily | I guess we could do that for new rooms | 17:59:33 |
| emily | many of our existing rooms are adopted though | 17:59:34 |
| emily | oops sorry network issues | 17:59:43 |
| emily | In reply to @charles:computer.surgery
i think a protocol could get at least some outage resiliency by having a set of trusted write nodes, but not sure yet what the best way to accomplish that would be well it's still ultimately just going to be a Paxos type thing right | 18:03:57 |
| emily | so you have the usual everything goes down if the ~centralized authority does thing | 18:04:30 |
 Charles | afaik, yes | 18:04:46 |
| emily | but it's fine. tbh. Matrix isn't resilient enough for the resilience features to pay dividends | 18:04:52 |
| emily | and optimizing for everything going down or being untrustworthy doesn't solve everything sucking really bad if everything goes down or is untrustworthy. someone's gotta do maintenance | 18:05:47 |
 Cat | Matrix is still not totally centralised even with the v12 change | 18:06:04 |
| Cat | but yes its more centralised ofc but atleast your not completely offline just because someone is having maintennance. | 18:06:30 |
| emily | it seems it is buying even less than before with the costs it pays for decentralization though? | 18:06:41 |
| emily | In reply to @cat:feline.support
but yes its more centralised ofc but atleast your not completely offline just because someone is having maintennance. I'm not sure you want availability when your Draupnir is down | 18:07:12 |
| Cat | fair | 18:07:27 |
| emily | it's kind of a pretty large target to paint on your rooms | 18:07:38 |
| Charles | yeah you got the right idea | 18:09:40 |
| emily | ultimately most communities do have centralized control. Matrix doesn't even serve the centralized decision-making case well because it's not like you can vote on mod actions without a central agent mediating that | 18:16:27 |
| emily | (ok I'm sure there's some big brained MSC for this) | 18:16:40 |
 Gnuxie 💜🐝 | policy servers are pretty close and a concession in the right direction | 18:18:36 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | problem is they fail open atm I think | 18:18:54 |
| emily | righr | 18:19:12 |
| emily | * | 18:19:16 |
| emily | if you're interested in other protocol designs like @charles:computer.surgery and accept that principle then I think you probably want to strip away a lot of Matrix complexity though | 18:19:54 |
| emily | since it just buys you much less at that point | 18:20:08 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | it's true but that's not going to happen overnight | 18:28:07 |
 Emma [it/its] | i dont like the idea of matrix being centralised but i do appreciate being at least somewhat able to cover the usecase via policy servers | 18:31:01 |
| emily | In reply to @gnu_ponut:matrix.org
it's true but that's not going to happen overnight oh for sure. I appreciate the work you put in | 18:36:41 |
| emily | I was only talking in the context of Charles expressing a desire for a differently-shaped protocol which I agree with | 18:37:11 |
 QuadRadical (Ping / Reply) | ive got my eye on polyproto | 19:16:47 |
|  andiandi@hadr25 🏰🏞️ changed their display name from andiandi 🦆 to andiandi@hadr25. | 22:09:07 |
| andiandi@hadr25 🏰🏞️ changed their display name from andiandi@hadr25 to andiandi@hadr25 🏰🏞️. | 22:13:44 |
