|
|
|
|
@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ This obsoletes [MSC1215](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1215).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collecting rooms together into groups is useful for a number of
|
|
|
|
|
purposes. Examples include:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Allowing users to discover different rooms related to a particular topic:
|
|
|
|
|
for example "official matrix.org rooms".
|
|
|
|
|
* Allowing administrators to manage permissions across a number of rooms: for
|
|
|
|
|
@ -61,14 +62,16 @@ Spaces are referred to primarily by their alias, for example
|
|
|
|
|
`#foo:matrix.org`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Space-rooms are distinguished from regular messaging rooms by the `m.room.type`
|
|
|
|
|
of `m.space` (see [MSC1840](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/1840)).
|
|
|
|
|
of `m.space` (see
|
|
|
|
|
[MSC1840](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/1840)). XXX nobody has
|
|
|
|
|
convinced me this is actually required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We introduce an `m.space.child` state event type, which defines the rooms
|
|
|
|
|
within the space. The `state_key` is an alias for a child room, and `present:
|
|
|
|
|
true` key is included to distinguish from a deleted state event. Something
|
|
|
|
|
like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
|
|
|
```js
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
"type": "m.space.child",
|
|
|
|
|
"state_key": "#room1:example.com",
|
|
|
|
|
@ -94,6 +97,17 @@ like:
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XXX if we use aliases here, and we are using it to maintain a tree of rooms in
|
|
|
|
|
the room list, what happens when the alias gets repointed and we don't know
|
|
|
|
|
about it? Maybe room IDs would be better, though the interaction with room
|
|
|
|
|
upgrades would need considering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XXX Rooms also need to be able to advertise related spaces, so that users can
|
|
|
|
|
discover other, related, rooms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XXX We also want to be have "secret" rooms within a heirarchy: do this with
|
|
|
|
|
either a "parent" state in the child, or possibly by hashing the room id?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Space-rooms may have `m.room.name` and `m.room.topic` state events in the same
|
|
|
|
|
way as a normal room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -118,7 +132,7 @@ Join rules, invites and 3PID invites work as for a normal room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Long description
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We would like to allow groups to have a long description using rich
|
|
|
|
|
We would like to allow spaces to have a long description using rich
|
|
|
|
|
formatting. This will use a new state event type `m.room.description` (with
|
|
|
|
|
empty `state_key`) whose content is the same format as `m.room.message` (ie,
|
|
|
|
|
contains a `msgtype` and possibly `formatted_body`).
|
|
|
|
|
@ -128,11 +142,147 @@ TODO: this could also be done via pinned messages. Failing that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Inheritance of power-levels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO
|
|
|
|
|
XXX: this section still in progress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One use-case for spaces is to help manage power levels across a group of
|
|
|
|
|
rooms. For example: "Jim has just joined the management team at my company. He
|
|
|
|
|
should have moderator rights across all of the company rooms."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the event-authorisation rules cannot easily be changed, we must map any
|
|
|
|
|
changes in space membership onto real `m.room.power_levels` events in the child
|
|
|
|
|
rooms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two parts to this: one, indicating the relationship, and second, the
|
|
|
|
|
mechanics of propagating changes into real `m.room.power_levels` events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Representing the mapping from spaces to power levels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Option 1: list the PLs which should apply in all child rooms in an event in
|
|
|
|
|
the parent. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```js
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
"type": "m.space.child_power_levels",
|
|
|
|
|
"state_key": "",
|
|
|
|
|
"content": {
|
|
|
|
|
// content as per regular power_levels event
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem 1: No automated mapping from space membership to user list, so the
|
|
|
|
|
user list would have to be maintained manually. On the other hand, this
|
|
|
|
|
could be fine in some situations, where we're just using the space to group
|
|
|
|
|
together rooms, rather than as a user list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem 2: No scope for nuance, where different rooms have slightly
|
|
|
|
|
different PLs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem 3: what happens to rooms where several spaces claim it as a child?
|
|
|
|
|
They end up fighting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem 4: Doesn't allow for random room admins to delegate their PLs to a
|
|
|
|
|
space without being admins in that space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Option 2: Express the desired PLs as state in the child rooms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This will need to be an ordered list, so that overlaps have defined behaviour:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```js
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
"type": "m.room.power_level_mappings",
|
|
|
|
|
"state_key": "",
|
|
|
|
|
"content": {
|
|
|
|
|
"mappings": [
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
"users": ["@superuser:matrix.org"],
|
|
|
|
|
"power_level": 100,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
"spaces": ["#mods:example.org"],
|
|
|
|
|
"power_level": 50,
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The intention would be that an automated process would peek into
|
|
|
|
|
`#mods:example.org` and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem 1: possibly hard to map onto a comprehensible UI?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem 2: scope for getting wildly out of sync?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question: is it safe to use an alias to refer to a space here? What happens
|
|
|
|
|
if the alias gets repointed and we don't notice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Propagating changes into rooms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Automated joins/leaves
|
|
|
|
|
* Push-based:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO
|
|
|
|
|
* We require any user who is an admin in the space (ie, anyone who has
|
|
|
|
|
permission to change the access rights in the space) to also be admins
|
|
|
|
|
and members of any child rooms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Say Bob is an admin in #doglovers and makes a change that should be
|
|
|
|
|
propagated to all children of that space. His server is then responsible
|
|
|
|
|
for generating a power-levels event on his behalf for each room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem: Bob may not want to be a member of all such rooms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* We nominate a non-human "group admin" which is responsible for propagating
|
|
|
|
|
the changes into child rooms. It observes changes made in the parent space
|
|
|
|
|
and performs the necessary copying actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem: Control is now centralised on the homeserver of the admin bot. If
|
|
|
|
|
that server goes down, changes are no longer propagated correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* We make it possible to specify several "group admin bot" users as above,
|
|
|
|
|
on different servers. All of them must have membership and admin in all
|
|
|
|
|
child rooms. Between them, they keep the child rooms in sync.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem: How do the bots decide which will actually make the changes?
|
|
|
|
|
* Maybe a random delay is good enough to avoid too much glare?
|
|
|
|
|
* Or the humans nominate an "active" bot, with the others acting as
|
|
|
|
|
standbys until they are promoted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Pull-based: the user that created the relationship (or rather, their
|
|
|
|
|
homeserver) is responsible for copying access controls into the room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has the advantage that users can set up their own spaces to mirror a
|
|
|
|
|
space, without having any particular control in that group. (XXX: Is that
|
|
|
|
|
actually a useful feature, at least as far as PLs are concerned?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem: What do you do if the admin who sets ip the PL relationship
|
|
|
|
|
disappears? Again, either the humans have to step in and create a new
|
|
|
|
|
admin, or maybe we can have multiple admins with random backoff?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem 2: What if the group server you are peeking to to maintain state is
|
|
|
|
|
unreachable? You could specify multiple vias for different servers via which
|
|
|
|
|
you can peek?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of the above solutions share the common problem that if the admin user
|
|
|
|
|
(human or virtual) loses membership or admin rights in the child room, then
|
|
|
|
|
the room will get out of sync.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Membership restrictions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XXX: this section still in progress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another desirable feature is to give room admins the power to restrict
|
|
|
|
|
membership of their room based on the membership of spaces<sup
|
|
|
|
|
id="a1">[1](#f1)</sup> (and by implication, when a user leaves the required
|
|
|
|
|
space, they should be ejected from the room). For example, "Any members of the
|
|
|
|
|
#doglovers space can join this room".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Automated joins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XXX: this section still in progress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A related feature is: "all members of the company should automatically join the
|
|
|
|
|
#general room", and by extension "all users should automatically join the
|
|
|
|
|
#brainwashing room and may not leave".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Future extensions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -151,6 +301,8 @@ Questions to be answered here include:
|
|
|
|
|
* What happens if somebody defines a cycle? (It's probably fine, but anything
|
|
|
|
|
interpreting the relationships needs to be careful to limit recursion.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XXX seems we need to un-de-scope this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Restricting access to the spaces membership list
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the existing `/r0/groups` API, the group server has total control over the
|
|
|
|
|
@ -238,3 +390,12 @@ namespace. For example, `m.space.child` becomes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* This replaces MSC1215: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZnAuA_zti-K2-RnheXII1F1-oyVziT4tJffdw1-SHrE
|
|
|
|
|
* Other thoughts that led into this are at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hljmD-ytdCRL37t-D_LvGDA3a0_2MwowSPIiZRxcabs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Footnotes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<a id="f1"/>[1]: The converse, "anybody can join, provided they are not members
|
|
|
|
|
of the '#catlovers' space" is less useful since (a) users in the banned space
|
|
|
|
|
could simply leave it at any time; (b) this functionality is already somewhat
|
|
|
|
|
provided by [Moderation policy
|
|
|
|
|
lists](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.6.1#moderation-policy-lists). [↩](#a1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard van der Hoff
4 years ago