On 12/7/17 1:14 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I think not re-issuing LC actually has the opposite effect, and reduces
> public feedback.
>
> Take this case, for instance. I am newly on Council, so I didn’t review this
> XEP thoroughly as part of the LC, now I have reviewed it more thorougly and I
>
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
XEP-0186.
Title: Invisible Command
Abstract:
This document specifies an XMPP protocol extension for user
invisibility.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
XEP-0387.
Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2018
Abstract:
This document defines XMPP protocol compliance levels.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0387.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
2017-1
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
XEP-0352.
Title: Client State Indication
Abstract:
This document defines a way for the client to indicate its
active/inactive state.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0352.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the clos
Georg,
> -Original Message-
> From: Standards [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Georg
> Lukas
> Sent: 07 December 2017 14:52
> To: standards@xmpp.org
> Subject: Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0369 (Mediated Information
> eXchange (MIX))
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> thanks for your feed
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 09:35, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
> FWIW, I am in the process of re-issuing the LC right now. The push is
> through,
> I just wait for the build and then we’ll get the emails. First, because
> the
> text in XEP-0001 is pretty clear on this (and if you don’t agree, we have
> to
On Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 15:18:57 CET Dave Cridland wrote:
> Let's just issue another LC, then. While I agree it'd be lovely to get the
> XEP done this year, it's not the end of the world and I don't see that
> arguing about it will solve anything (especially if XEP-0001 has this in
> the pr
On 7 Dec 2017 15:52, "Georg Lukas" wrote:
Hi Steve,
thanks for your feedback. Please allow me some more remarks.
* Steve Kille [2017-12-07 14:03]:
> > | 13. Although some protocol is shared with MUC, MUC clients are not
> > | interoperable with a MIX service. This means that where a user
>
On 6 Dec 2017 13:28, "Kevin Smith" wrote:
On 29 Nov 2017, at 16:42, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>
> Present: Dave (Chair), Kevin, Georg, Daniel, Sam
> Minutes: Yours truly.
>
> Chat logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-11-29#15:55:08
>
>
> 1. XEP-0387 (Compliance Suites 2018), vote to move to Draft
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 02:14, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I think not re-issuing LC actually has the opposite effect, and reduces
> public feedback.
Again, what feedback would we get now that we wouldn't have gotten last
time?
> Take this case, for instance. I am newly on Council, so I didn’t review
>
Hi Steve,
thanks for your feedback. Please allow me some more remarks.
* Steve Kille [2017-12-07 14:03]:
> > | 13. Although some protocol is shared with MUC, MUC clients are not
> > | interoperable with a MIX service. This means that where a user
> > | chooses to use MIX, all of the user
Georg,
Thanks for your detailed review comments.Let me go over them.
> -Original Message-
> From: Standards [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Georg
> Lukas
> Sent: 05 December 2017 20:04
> To: standards@xmpp.org
> Subject: Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0369 (Mediated Inf
On Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 18:58:32 CET Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2017, at 18:47, Sam Whited wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 12:12, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >> I think 49 needs to be in there for servers - it’s widely needed to make
> >> clients useful.
> >
> > What is actually using this t
On Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 08:14:48 CET Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 17:03:16 CET Kevin Smith wrote:
> >>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 16:39, Sam Whited wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:34, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
On 7 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>
> On Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 17:03:16 CET Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 16:39, Sam Whited wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:34, Kevin Smith wrote:
The motivation in xep1 is that the outgoing Council members might have
>
On Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 17:03:16 CET Kevin Smith wrote:
> > On 6 Dec 2017, at 16:39, Sam Whited wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:34, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >> The motivation in xep1 is that the outgoing Council members might have
> >> not given public feedback, due to being on Counci
16 matches
Mail list logo
