Presence and IntComm WG

[Sean Dilda <>]

Jorj Bauer wrote:

> The discussion turns to the direction of the pic.edu project; this
> seems to line up with pic.edu's goals. OpenFire should be our
> standard, with tiered service; Penn might provide resources to the
> development effort.

>   MG: does it have to be OpenFire? What does it mean to pic.edu if
>   we're cobbling together a proof of concept? The choice of OpenFire
>   should be the supported recommendation for pic; tiered service. If
>   you want to just communicate, you use whatever version you like; for
>   level 2, you need to use version X of our server.

Am I reading this correctly?  It sounds like from this that you're 
wanting to make it so that if a university is to take part in pic.edu, 
that they not only have to run OpenFire, but your version of OpenFire. 
 Shouldn't this be a little more open?

Here at Duke we're happily running ejabberd for our xmpp service.  When 
pic.edu is up and running, there's a decent chance we'll want to 
participate.  In the mean time, we're continuing to build our IM and 
presence offerings for our current needs.  As such, when pic.edu is up 
and running, we may not be in a position to easily switch XMPP backends.