On 4 Mar 2019, at 10:22, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
> I do not dislike publishing the Compliance Suite content as part of the
> website. It will make things more clear. I do not believe, however, that the
> process of choosing what goes on that page is going to be faster, as compared
> to doing
I do not dislike publishing the Compliance Suite content as part of the
website. It will make things more clear. I do not believe, however, that
the process of choosing what goes on that page is going to be faster, as
compared to doing this as a XEP. If anything, for a XEP, we have a process.
On
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 7:42 AM, Ненахов Андрей
wrote:
I think that the whole idea of making compliance suites as a xep is
flawed and creates unnecessary bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake.
It could have been just a page on xmpp.org website, listing XEPs that
council currently consideres part
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 10:13, Severino Ferrer de la Peñita
wrote:
> On Monday, March 4, 2019 5:42:24 AM CET Ненахов Андрей wrote:
> > I think that the whole idea of making compliance suites as a xep is
> flawed
> > and creates unnecessary bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake.
> >
> > It could have
On Monday, March 4, 2019 5:42:24 AM CET Ненахов Андрей wrote:
> I think that the whole idea of making compliance suites as a xep is flawed
> and creates unnecessary bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake.
>
> It could have been just a page on xmpp.org website, listing XEPs that
> council currently
I think that the whole idea of making compliance suites as a xep is flawed
and creates unnecessary bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake.
It could have been just a page on xmpp.org website, listing XEPs that
council currently consideres part of a compliance suites. No bureaucracy,
no need to update
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 3:41:44 PM CET Sam Whited wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019, at 13:51, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > Who are you arguing *with*?
>
> The council and new authors. Also specifically the "Pot, kettle, etc."
> statement, if you meant my last email.
>
> > I agree it's ridiculous, but I
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019, at 13:51, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Who are you arguing *with*?
The council and new authors. Also specifically the "Pot, kettle, etc."
statement, if you meant my last email.
> I agree it's ridiculous, but I also note that the number of comments
> on the 2019 one is considerably
Who are you arguing *with*?
I agree it's ridiculous, but I also note that the number of comments on the
2019 one is considerably below 20, and possibly less than 15, depending on
how one counts. The number of people involved in the discussion outside
Council is less than 5 (and I'm including your
I pushed for them to be updated in a reasonable time frame in previous years
too.
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, at 19:44, Tedd Sterr wrote:
> > I'd like to point out that it's now the third month of 2019 and the 2018
> > compliance suites are still the ones that appear to be accepted (even
> > though,
> I'd like to point out that it's now the third month of 2019 and the 2018
> compliance suites are still the ones that appear to be accepted (even though,
> confusingly, they also say "draft" on them):
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0387.html
> As I've argued before, this looks ridiculous and
I'd like to point out that it's now the third month of 2019 and the 2018
compliance suites are still the ones that appear to be accepted (even though,
confusingly, they also say "draft" on them):
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0387.html
As I've argued before, this looks ridiculous and should
12 matches
Mail list logo
