On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> It seems premature to advance Carbons until we have a clear path forward on
> this.
Agreed, hence the thread.
I'm split on the issue of Carbons vs. MAM; as I said, I like the fact
that carbons has a fairly small footprint, on the other hand,
On 18 Jun 2015, at 14:47, Sam Whited wrote:
> To keep the other thread on topic, I've split this off. I'd love to
> formally put the advancement of carbons on the agenda. Thoughts from
> the community/council?
My thoughts are that one of two things needs to happen. Either Carbons needs to
be upd
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Curtis King wrote:
> I like to avoid adding protocol extensions which become abandoned.
I agree with you, but Carbons is already implemented widely, so I'm
not sure that it's likely to just disappear any time soon. If MAM
actually had enough functionality to repla
