6.5 KiB
Proposal for groups as rooms (take 2)
This obsoletes MSC1215.
Problem
The current groups API has some serious issues:
- It is a large API surface to implement, maintain and spec - particularly for all the different clients out there.
- Much of the API overlaps significantly with mechanisms we already have for
managing rooms:
- Tracking membership identity
- Tracking membership hierarchy
- Inviting/kicking/banning user
- Tracking key/value metadata
- There are membership management features which could benefit rooms which would also benefit groups and vice versa (e.g. "auditorium mode")
- The current implementations on Riot Web/iOS/Android all suffer bugs and
issues which have been solved previously for rooms.
- no local-echo of invites
- failures to set group avatars
- ability to specify multiple admins
- It doesn't support pushing updates to clients (particularly for flair membership): https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues/5235
- It doesn't support third party invites.
- Groups could benefit from other features which already exist today for rooms
- e.g. Room Directories
- Groups are centralised, rather than being existing across multiple participating servers.
Solution
Represent groups by rooms rather than a custom first-class entity.
We reserve aliases which begin with a + to represent groups - e.g. the room
for group +test:example.com is #+test:example.com.
We introduce a m.room.groups state event which defines how a room should
behave as a group - i.e. the rooms which it groups together, and any subgroups
nested within it.
{
"type": "m.room.groups",
"contents": {
"rooms": [
{
"room": "#room1:example.com",
},
{
"room": "#room2:example.com",
"autojoin": true
},
{
"room": "#room3:example.com",
},
],
"subgroups": [
{
"group": "+something:example.com",
},
{
"group": "+otherthing:example.com",
},
]
},
}
Name, Topic, Membership etc share the same events as a normal room.
The flair for a group is given by the room avatar.
Long description requires a new event: m.room.description. This can also be
used for rooms as well as groups.
Groups may be nested, and membership of groups is defined as the union of the
members of the group room and its subgroups. If +top:example.com has two
subgroups, the user membership of +top:example.com is the union of the
subgroups and the group itself. This allows hierarchies of groups & users to be
defined.
Clients peek in rooms (recursing into subgroups as needed) in order to determine group membership.
Invites, 3PID invites, Power Levels etc all work as for a normal room.
Normal messages within the room could be showed and used as a 'lobby' area for the given group.
This requires no server changes at all, other than better support for peeking (see Dependencies below), and could allow the existing /groups API to be deprecated and removed outright.
ACLs
Currently the group server has total control over specifying the list of users who may be present in a group, as seen by a given querying user. In other words, arbitrary users can see entirely different views of a group at the server's discretion.
Whilst this is very powerful for mapping arbitrary group structures into Matrix, it may be overengineered.
Instead, the common case is wanting to define a group where some users are
publicly visible as members, and others are not. This is what the current use
cases require today. A simple way of achieving would be to create a subgroup
for the private members - e.g. have +sensitive:matrix.org and +sensitive-
private:matrix.org. The membership of +sensitive-private:matrix.org is set up
with m.room.join_rules to not to allow peeking; you have to be joined to see
the members, and users who don't want to be seen by the public to be member of
the group are added to the subgroup.
XXX: is there a use case today for having a group where users are unaware of the
other users' membership? e.g. if I am a member of +scandalous:matrix.org
should i have a way to stop other members knowing that I am? One solution here
could be "auditorium mode", where users cannot see other users' identities
(unless they speak). This could be added later, however, and would also be
useful for normal rooms.
Flair
TODO: We need to establish how users should safely advertise their flair. Perhaps they can claim whatever flair they like on their profile (MSC1769) and clients need to then doublecheck whether the assertion is true by peeking in the room in question to check it's true?
Dependencies
This needs peeking to work effectively on CS API.
This needs peeking to work effectively over federation (e.g. by having servers join remote rooms as @null:example.com in order to participate in them for peeking purposes).
These dependencies are shared with profiles-as-rooms (MSC1769).
Security considerations
XXX: how do we stop cycles & recursion abuse of the subgroups?
Tradeoffs
This consciously sacrifices the ability to delegate group lookups through to a centralised group server. However, group data can already be stale as we rely on cached attestations from federated servers to apply ACLs even if the remote server is not available. So this isn’t much worse than eventually consistent group membership as you’d find in a room.
It also means that large groups have to be bridged in their entirety into the room, rather than querying/searching incrementally. This is something we should fix for bridged rooms in general too, however.
This also consciously sacrifices the ability for a group server to provide different 'views' of groups to different querying users, as being overengineered. Instead, all common use cases should be modellable by modelling group memnbership as room membership (nesting if required).
Issues
How does this work with [MSC1229](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix- doc/issues/1229) (removing MXIDs)?
History
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