Fix DMs.

[ara4n]

We have hopes and dreams of simplifying DMs:

• Making them symmetrical for both users (i.e. decorating the room, not the user's view of the room)
• Making them immutable
  and stuff.

Placeholder to write that up.

[ara4n]

fix in the redesign

[ara4n]

i've lost my notes for this >:(

[ara4n]

I found my notes, which i'm going to c+p verbatim here before i lose them again. (these are not meant to make sense to anyone but me and possibly @AmandineLP; they're notes taken from arguing this through as we flew to DWS 2018 iirc):

Things to fix:

• Everyone should have the same view of the room.
• Stop confusing users by letting them feel they can invite users into a DM (but we support it for bots and super-powerusers anyway). The proto should support it, but we can hide it from the UX by default.
• Fractal should be able to ditch public rooms in the BBQ view, if it wants to.

Options:

1. Private v. Public (i.e. 1:1s and Priv Group chat v. Public) where public is join_rule based
2. DMs v. Private Rooms v. Public Rooms (where DMs can include bots)
3. DMs v Rooms
4. Define groupness based on notif settings? (doesn't make sense; everyone should have the same view of the room).

M&A agree option 2 is simplest.
DMs are immutable.

What about private groups?

• Obviously public rooms should be able to be join_ruled invite only when needed; but do they move to private rooms or not?
• Either: no: because the intent was clearly that they were public and they shouldn't jump around the menu on join-rule changes
• Or... yes: because we should put the room in the right category.
  • => we vote yes.

---

After discussing with Tobias on private group immutability:

• This would be weird for the Slack folks, as company group chats would get entangled with private group chats.
• In other words, publicness is relative.

What makes a channel a channel and not a group?

• Public join rules?
• Join rules available to a group?
• An alias? <-- this could be the best bet, but given anyone can add an alias... >:(
• A name?
• The intent when it is created?
• The intent at any point?

[ara4n]

TL;DR: current conclusion is:

• make DMs immutable
• ensure there's only one DM room for a given pair of users, tracking on room state (somehow)
• additional users (e.g. bots) can still be invited into DMs though.

In future:

• split rooms based on join_rules into "private groups" and "public rooms" or something.
  • perhaps call DMs "private chats"?
• as join_rules are toggled on and off for a room, they can move between these two sections. i.e. these are not immutable.
• if you want to separate your workplace private groups from your social private groups, use communities.
• remove "low priority" from the LeftPanel, hiding it as an option in the TopLeftMenu, to make room for "private groups".