First, thanks for dropping by.  The general model for this kind of thing is a free membership initially, with membership and/or use fees charged only for the deluxe, all-bells-and-whistles experience.  We hope there will be a number of for-profit social networking, trade association, or other sites that will want to incorporate this functionality and would be willing to pay a licensing fee.  These fees, we hope, would underwrite the costs of providing the service to nonprofit sites.

I'd be interested in hearing more about your Java experience.  You can write to me at info@throngz.com.

Thanks for stopping by, Heather.  My partner and I had social activists in mind when we created Throngz, but I think that anyone who's ever experienced these kinds of frustrations would benefit.

A lot of online social networks currently invite only very fleeting exchanges.  Throngz can help deepen and extend online group interactions.

_____

Glauco

Thanks for your comment, Max.  If you're in a hurry, Throngz gives you the option of scheduling and holding a private online meeting.  If you're not, Throngz can simply tell you, each time you go online, "who's around" and willing to enter into a discussion you've proposed.  (In the latter case, the other would-be discussants would need to have been automatically logged in to Throngz, at startup, say -- the preferred mode, I would think -- or manually logged in at some point.)

The IM part of Throngz, which will supply the multi-user chat that is the "cyber-salon" is based on the XMPP (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol aka "Jabber") standard. The specific implementation we have chose is the Openfire server with its associated Spark client; these are both open-source projects.

By using Openfire and XMPP, we get a lot of stuff "for free" allowing us to focus on what makes Throngz unique. For example, if you have a discussion that's popular enough to draw 200 registratants you will be able to set it up as a "Panel discussion with audience." Your primary participants are visible and able to talk, while most everyone else is invisible and silent. A moderator could enable select audience members to join in to ask questions during a Q&A.

This scenario is already supported by exisiting XMPP functionality. Of course, in XMPP-world, there are "roles" and "associations" that need to be set properly for each participant to arrange it like that. Most XMPP clients (including Spark) present the XMPP functionality to the user pretty much as it is. Throngz would put a layer around that, presenting it in more context-specific terms (such as "panelist" and "audience member").

The initial release will focus on what we need for smaller, more intimate discussions where the concern is not having enough people. When someone proposes a discussion, they specify how many registrants they want before they have enough to make it worth having. They also specify how many need to be available (present in IM) before it can be convened. When the "critical mass is met," Throngz will contact the participants and say, "Hey! Enough participants are on-line for that discussion on 'funding inner-city literacy programs' -- is this a good time for you?" If enough "yes" responses come in, the discussion starts.

This "real time and the right time" technology gets past the problems of organizing a meeting between busy people in different organizations and different geographical locations, etc. Really, it would be nearly miraculous to get some of these kinds of people "together in a room" at the same time, so I look forward to the day when you could convene a crowd of 200!

Another reason we've chosen Openfire/Spark is that the architecture supports "plug-ins" to extend its functionality. When we get the resources, we will be customizing Spark (the client), with Throngz-specific GUI components (hence the need for a Java Swing programmer). We'd also like to contribute to Openfire/Spark and make a better platform for others to use. XMPP servers can connect together, so the more the merrier.

It's good to hear from you, Brecht.  Funny we should meet here rather than in some L.A. lounge featuring a Velvet Underground cover band.  Just a thought.

I am tired, I am weary
I could sleep for a thousand years
A thousand dreams that would awake me
Different colors made of tears

In answer to your question: People who propose discussion topics can limit the number of participants.  If you mark a discussion as "private," only the people you invite will be permitted into your cyber-salon.  If the discussion topic is open, you can still specify a maximum number of participants.

_____

Glauco

You know from your own blog, e, that most online group engagement is pretty asynchronous.  People drop by when you're not there, or they simply lurk (you're OK if you look at the merchandise, but if you pick up that Dwight Shrute figurine while the shopkeeper's watching, you're going to get pressed for a sale).

Throngz harnesses the very synchronous energy of the multi-user chat for (what we hope will be) progressive ends.  The discussion mode doesn't have to be a chat, by the way: At some point we plan to add the option of calling people together for a synchronous message board-style discussion.  This option might be attractive to groups of people who like the thread/subthread hierarchy the message board format imposes.  Five people can riff on the main thread, say, while two others work out some disagreement in a subthread.  Once these two come to some resolution, they can rejoin the others on the main thread.  This and other options will have to wait until Throngz 2.0, however :o)

P.S.  I liked your Anna Nicole Smith post.