On 9/21/11 5:23 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > > On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Alexander Holler wrote: > >> Am 21.09.2011 03:03, schrieb Kurt Zeilenga: >>> While XEP 45, Section 9.4 is reasonable clear that loss of >>> membership causes a kick from the room, Section 10.7 is less >>> clear of what happens on loss of admin privs. >>> >>> 10.7 says: If the user is in the room, the service MUST then send >>> updated presence from this individual to all occupants, >>> indicating the loss of administrative privileges by sending a >>> presence element that contains an<x/> element qualified by the >>> 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user' namespace and containing >>> an<item/> child with the 'affiliation' attribute set to a value >>> other than "admin" or "owner" and the 'role' attribute set to an >>> appropriate value given the affiliation level and the room type >>> >>> and then gives an example of showing the user moved to >>> participant. >>> >>> It doesn't detail what actually is 'appropriate'. >> >> >> Table 4 (5.1.2 Default Roles) shows what is appropriate. > > Where does this table, or anywhere in that section, does it say what > actions are triggered due to the affiliation change? > > It's not. Loss of admin affiliation is discussed in section 10… but > without detail required to ensure consistent behavior.
I've never seen anyone lose their admin privileges, so I don't know how important it is to have consistent behavior. > Personally, I think the occupant which loss admin privs to a > member-only room ought to be kicked. Others might think otherwise. Why not transition from admin to mere member? I don't see a reason to kick or ban someone just because they're no longer an admin, even in a members-only room. And in any case it all depends on what the owner does (change affiliation from admin to member or admin to none or admin to outcast). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
