XSF Discussion - 2013-11-21

the problem about google is not adding a gmail exception

it's having to add a hosted-on-google-apps exception

so that would be an exception for anything whose srv records points to xmpp-server.l.google.com. or any of it's 1.l, 2.l, 3.l or 4.l cousins

fippo: indeed

How people see XMPP when they look at the server list on the xmpp.org site: https://twitter.com/bobpoekert/status/403302786747486209

If having implementations in many languages is 'crusty', it's not clear to me that crusty is a bad thing.

The list of dead servers is another matter.

Have you read the replies? A comment that came up in Portland, many in the list aren't actively developed..

…what you just said :)

A policy of "Need to rerequest to be added each year" might cause some of the abandoned things to drop off.

Was just thinking about that. Problem is that it increases admin effort (albeit a small amount) and do we prod projects or do they have to come to us? (I know my answer there).

Date of last release as a column? Automate it somehow?

MattJ: I'm not sure 'date of last release' is as good a metric as 'authors are prepared to relist'.

Last release >1y, project is not active?

I don't think that's true.

Or, at least "Getting new stuff added" isn't terribly important, "authors are still looking after it" is.

agreed. If there's someone willing to put the effort in to get their server relisted you can be fairly sure the project is active.