# content
It may be better to put this in a shared pad to work among various folxs, but let's start here the talk and see WDYT... :)

** Generalisms...

Communication today has so many channels/media that fragmentation is a serious issue for many people and organizations. Today is common for groups to talk via more than one of many methods like Slack (or similar channel based chats or CBCs like RocketChat, Zulip, Mattermost, etc.), Whatsapp (yuk!), Telegram, Signal or Matrix, Email, maybe Google Talk, Discord (or similar services like Guilded) and more. Classics are still there for those that appreciate them, like XMPP. And may the Earth spirits prevent you from having to use Microsoft Teams. There are even more and newer ones, and very interesting ones as Scuttlebutt...

Each channel has it's own characteristics that results in some weaknesses and some strengths. 2 of the most used are:

+ Email :: An ordered conversation. (perceived as) solid, slow, known, trustable, deep, completely interoperable, with an order based on folders. Keeps threading. Young people don't use it for communications (only as account for other services).

+ Instant Messaging (IM) ordered as channel based chats (CBC) :: a river that flows endlessly. (perceived as) easy, fast, because of that quite superficial, with an order based on people/group. While possible, not much threading used really (doesn't keep context well). Young and old people uses it a lot because it's easy and fast.

The proposed hypothesis here is that an activity server with some pluses as Bonfire is developing may be a bridge between these 2 universes; in other words, a sweet spot between email and IM/CBCs apps.

What is good about e-mail as a medium? In my opinion, the capacity to be precise in which you include or not in the conversations, and the possibility of having deep conversations (may be derived from an open UI and the non-synchronous expectation?).

What is good about IMs as a medium? They are easy and fast.

Where does Bonfire fits in here? I think that in a sweet spot in the middle with the best of each media. :)

Bonfire:

- is fast :: with a good mobile app or in a browser it allows for fast and simple replies is someone needs them. And if you put notification for everything, it's almost like any IM.

- allows a lot of precision in terms of destinations :: individual people, groups (circles), the whose instance, the whole Fediverse, only self defined interested people (with hashtags or themes) and permissions (what are now boundaries). These can be -or not- listed just as channel based chats do, but can include more than one destination (something channel based chats can't do, you either write in "Dev" or in "UX" or in "General", or copy the message and follows each copy thread).

- keeps context :: this doesn't needs anything from the user, just hitting "reply" means the server keeps the thread and that those threads can be named and addressed.

- allows serious replies :: it's editor is generous and allows quotes.

- interoperates :: with any other ActivityPub talking services. Like email, you are not bounded by your domain and the same tool can be used with close or far away, know or new ones.

** Bonfire for an organization

Additionally, Bonfire has some benefits for any organization:

- it's safe :: it keeps the information (and can be backed up) in the server, so it doesn't depends on the backup of any device or person.

- it's sovereign :: with a minimum of technological knowledge any organization can have it's owns safe space for communication.

** What is done and what it may need to serve this communication needs?

TBD

Some things can make this possibility a reality faster.

- A great mobile interaction :: for many people, this is a must. Notifications should be precise and customizable. Writing should be generous. Audio messages must be allowed?

- Others? :: ...

# source.content
It may be better to put this in a shared pad to work among various folxs, but let's start here the talk and see WDYT... :)

** Generalisms...

Communication today has so many channels/media that fragmentation is a serious issue for many people and organizations. Today is common for groups to talk via more than one of many methods like Slack (or similar channel based chats or CBCs like RocketChat, Zulip, Mattermost, etc.), Whatsapp (yuk!), Telegram, Signal or Matrix, Email, maybe Google Talk, Discord (or similar services like Guilded) and more. Classics are still there for those that appreciate them, like XMPP. And may the Earth spirits prevent you from having to use Microsoft Teams. There are even more and newer ones, and very interesting ones as Scuttlebutt...

Each channel has it's own characteristics that results in some weaknesses and some strengths. 2 of the most used are:

+ Email :: An ordered conversation. (perceived as) solid, slow, known, trustable, deep, completely interoperable, with an order based on folders. Keeps threading. Young people don't use it for communications (only as account for other services).

+ Instant Messaging (IM) ordered as channel based chats (CBC) :: a river that flows endlessly. (perceived as) easy, fast, because of that quite superficial, with an order based on people/group. While possible, not much threading used really (doesn't keep context well). Young and old people uses it a lot because it's easy and fast.

The proposed hypothesis here is that an activity server with some pluses as Bonfire is developing may be a bridge between these 2 universes; in other words, a sweet spot between email and IM/CBCs apps.

What is good about e-mail as a medium? In my opinion, the capacity to be precise in which you include or not in the conversations, and the possibility of having deep conversations (may be derived from an open UI and the non-synchronous expectation?).

What is good about IMs as a medium? They are easy and fast.

Where does Bonfire fits in here? I think that in a sweet spot in the middle with the best of each media. :)

Bonfire:

- is fast :: with a good mobile app or in a browser it allows for fast and simple replies is someone needs them. And if you put notification for everything, it's almost like any IM.

- allows a lot of precision in terms of destinations :: individual people, groups (circles), the whose instance, the whole Fediverse, only self defined interested people (with hashtags or themes) and permissions (what are now boundaries). These can be -or not- listed just as channel based chats do, but can include more than one destination (something channel based chats can't do, you either write in "Dev" or in "UX" or in "General", or copy the message and follows each copy thread).

- keeps context :: this doesn't needs anything from the user, just hitting "reply" means the server keeps the thread and that those threads can be named and addressed.

- allows serious replies :: it's editor is generous and allows quotes.

- interoperates :: with any other ActivityPub talking services. Like email, you are not bounded by your domain and the same tool can be used with close or far away, know or new ones.

** Bonfire for an organization

Additionally, Bonfire has some benefits for any organization:

- it's safe :: it keeps the information (and can be backed up) in the server, so it doesn't depends on the backup of any device or person.

- it's sovereign :: with a minimum of technological knowledge any organization can have it's owns safe space for communication.

** What is done and what it may need to serve this communication needs?

TBD

Some things can make this possibility a reality faster.

- A great mobile interaction :: for many people, this is a must. Notifications should be precise and customizable. Writing should be generous. Audio messages must be allowed?

- Others? :: ...