On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > 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.
Because the gov't testers expect consistency between implementations here. And if you don't do what they got written in their procedures, you better have some support in the spec for your behavior else you'll be coding a change. > >> 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? The owner could have requested that the admin be moved to member and hence leaving the user as a participant. But the owner changed the affiliation to 'none'. Why would you leave anyone moved to 'none' in the member-only room? > 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. Then don't move them to 'none'. Move them to member. > 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). Right. The question is what should happen if the owner moved the user from admin to none, not whether the owner should have moved the user to member instead. -- Kurt > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > >
