Modern XMPP project discussion - 2025-09-26

I'm struggling making a nice UI to explain what are the difference between roles and affiliations in MUC, especially between the Admin (aff), Owner (aff) and Moderator (role). Even for me its confusing. Is there some kind of documentation or reference UI for that ? ✏

> I'm struggling making a nice UI to explain what are the difference between roles and affiliations in MUC, especially between the Admin (aff), Owner (aff) and Moderator (role). Even for me its confusing. Is there some kind of documentation or reference UI for that ? 🤔 ↺

edhelas: don't. Forget roles, show only affiliations

Yes but then how can I handle the Mute feature

Ok that was not good, I retract that statement

Maybe abstract it in the code

Yes but how

Make you own affiliations where you mix protocol affils and roles

Into a single enum or something

I was ready to just put a toggle on that and set the member visitor or not, but a role can also be moderator and participant

Yeah create your own logic how you fuse them into one

For example moderator and admin = admin

And that is exactly why i'm asking the question there

What is your logic and can we define a common logic

Participant + moderator = moderator

I can look it up later in gajim ✏

I think you create a hirachy Owner Admin Moderator Member Participant Participant without voice

That its how its done in Gajim ?

You have a dropdown like this ?

dropdown? no, for what? to set a affiliation/role?

https://share.hoerist.com/philipp/message/o7YkOkcjRsRqXqYl/3c19257d-b731-4984-b3da-c00669b756db.png

https://share.hoerist.com/philipp/message/AjG2jVR1cp2jx3SB/734b6833-2909-4b15-ad45-6358ee9609c6.png

note we dont offer a "make moderator" option, as i have the personal ability its not a useful feature for people

- because server dont preserve that role, so once the user leaves the role is gone - i think its a very big big edge case that you cannot make the same member simply an Admin instead

-ability +opinion

i dont see a lot of people have an intersection at, i trust that user to moderate my channel (Moderator), but i dont want him to have admin permission (for some reason nobody yet told me)

So you do have a Revoke voice option that set the member to role = visitor

So what are you doing when removing the no-voice option ? role = participant ?

first voice is a tricky topic that depends on how the muc is configured

it may have no impact at all

i dont get your question, are you asking how i remove voice from someone?

granting voice is sending the server role=participant

revoking is role=visitor

> first voice is a tricky topic that depends on how the muc is configured Yeah, a moderated channel and voicing participants is not exactly the same as muting or shadow banning someone. ↺

I hope these will get added in GC3 as options.

> granting voice is sending the server role=participant Okay, looks good to me ↺

And is there cases where you send the role = moderator in your code ?

no

i said this above

Then I'll do the same

And make the voice a toggle :) Way easier in the UI and understandable for the users

yes, i would abstract that all in a single list of "Roles" and simply offer actions to change that "Role"

something we did recently is also to remove showing the difference between "member" and "participants"

both are now simply "participants"

and people without voice are "visitors"

Interesting

Is GC3 going this way ?

no idea, never looked into GC3

> and people without voice are "visitors" I'm thinking if it could be a new table on the modernxmpp website for all that ? ↺

What about muc_sub subcribers (ejabberd only I think?)

never heard of that and dont know what it does

https://docs.ejabberd.im/developer/xmpp-clients-bots/extensions/muc-sub/

Something like that will probably end up in GC3

the thing with members vs participants is, that members just default to participants

but thats some rule that the server needs to know, not the user

user just cares, who can talk and who not

But yeah not saying we have found the perfect solution, I feel we are 90% there

> no idea, never looked into GC3 xmpp:gc3@rooms.modernxmpp.org?join ↺

edhelas [15:29]: > Is GC3 going this way ? Roles are indeed being phased out in GC3