* [Galene] suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface
@ 2021-01-01 11:21 err404
2021-01-01 17:00 ` [Galene] " Juliusz Chroboczek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: err404 @ 2021-01-01 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: galene
Hello all.
in the config file for a group, the user "others" can be set for anonymous users.
theses anonymous users appear with nickname: anon in the web interface.
what did you think if we change the "others" to "anonymous" in the config file?
thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface
2021-01-01 11:21 [Galene] suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface err404
@ 2021-01-01 17:00 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-01-01 17:10 ` err404
2021-01-02 13:24 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Juliusz Chroboczek @ 2021-01-01 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: err404; +Cc: galene
> in the config file for a group, the user "others" can be set for
> anonymous users. theses anonymous users appear with nickname: anon in
> the web interface.
That's not how "others" works: it specifies users that don't have the
right to turn their camera on until they have been given the "present"
permission by the operator (using the command "/present").
There are two ways of setting up a group in Galène:
- give all users the "present" persmission -- the administrator can then
silence disruptive users using the "/unpresent" command;
- give users just the "other" persmission -- the administrator can then
use the "/present" command to voice a user.
> what did you think if we change the "others" to "anonymous" in the config file?
A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
anonymous user is just one that has an empty username. This is controlled
by the "allow-anonymous" field.
-- Juliusz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface
2021-01-01 17:00 ` [Galene] " Juliusz Chroboczek
@ 2021-01-01 17:10 ` err404
2021-01-02 13:24 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: err404 @ 2021-01-01 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juliusz Chroboczek; +Cc: galene
On 1/1/21 6:00 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> in the config file for a group, the user "others" can be set for
>> anonymous users. theses anonymous users appear with nickname: anon in
>> the web interface.
>
> That's not how "others" works: it specifies users that don't have the
> right to turn their camera on until they have been given the "present"
> permission by the operator (using the command "/present").
>
> There are two ways of setting up a group in Galène:
>
> - give all users the "present" persmission -- the administrator can then
> silence disruptive users using the "/unpresent" command;
> - give users just the "other" persmission -- the administrator can then
> use the "/present" command to voice a user.
>
>> what did you think if we change the "others" to "anonymous" in the config file?
>
> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username. This is controlled
> by the "allow-anonymous" field.
>
> -- Juliusz
>
thanks for your answer.
I activateed the "allow-anonymous" and also the "others" fields, it was confusing for me.
it is more clear now :p
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface
2021-01-01 17:00 ` [Galene] " Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-01-01 17:10 ` err404
@ 2021-01-02 13:24 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-01-03 10:51 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen @ 2021-01-02 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juliusz Chroboczek, err404; +Cc: galene
Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> writes:
> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username. This is controlled
> by the "allow-anonymous" field.
"muted" ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface
2021-01-02 13:24 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
@ 2021-01-03 10:51 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-01-03 13:15 ` Gabriel Kerneis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Juliusz Chroboczek @ 2021-01-03 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen; +Cc: galene
>> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
>> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username. This is controlled
>> by the "allow-anonymous" field.
> "muted" ?
Too close, it will lead to confusion. See, it's like "Juliusz" -- too
close to a name in English, people tend to mis-spell it. On the other
hand, nobody ever mis-spells "Chroboczek". (Except the administration of
the University of Paris, but they're a completely different category.)
-- Julius*z*
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface
2021-01-03 10:51 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
@ 2021-01-03 13:15 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2021-01-03 17:02 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Kerneis @ 2021-01-03 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: galene
On Sun, 3 Jan 2021, at 11:51, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> >> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
> >> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username. This is controlled
> >> by the "allow-anonymous" field.
>
> > "muted" ?
Why muted? Can't an anonymous user speak like any other?
> Too close, it will lead to confusion. See, it's like "Juliusz" -- too
> close to a name in English, people tend to mis-spell it. On the other
> hand, nobody ever mis-spells "Chroboczek". (Except the administration of
> the University of Paris, but they're a completely different category.)
I have a hard time understanding the value proposition here, if users can pick arbitrary pseudonyms anyway. In the chat in particular, having distinct usernames to distinguish who is speaking (albeit anonymously) seems like a feature to me. What about not allowing empty usernames, but generating (distinct) pseudonyms automatically if left empty?
Jitsi uses "a jitsi user" (maybe with an added counter #1), which I don't like very much. Google uses animals (at least for user icons), which reminds me of Ubuntu codenames.
Gabriel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Galene] Re: suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface
2021-01-03 13:15 ` Gabriel Kerneis
@ 2021-01-03 17:02 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Juliusz Chroboczek @ 2021-01-03 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gabriel Kerneis; +Cc: galene
>>> A better name would be welcome, but "anonymous" is a bad choice -- an
>>> anonymous user is just one that has an empty username. This is controlled
>>> by the "allow-anonymous" field.
>> "muted" ?
> Why muted? Can't an anonymous user speak like any other?
An anonymous user is a user with no username.
A user in the "other" category is a user who doesn't have the right to
click "Ready" (the UI disables the button, but the server enforces the
limitation).
-- Juliusz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-03 17:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-01 11:21 [Galene] suggestion: "others" in config file, versus "anon" in web interface err404
2021-01-01 17:00 ` [Galene] " Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-01-01 17:10 ` err404
2021-01-02 13:24 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-01-03 10:51 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-01-03 13:15 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2021-01-03 17:02 ` Juliusz Chroboczek
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox