[standards-jig] Version 0.6 of JEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat)

David Sutton jabber at dsutton.legend.uk.com
Sun Sep 22 05:17:26 UTC 2002

Hi there, 

On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 06:12:10PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, David Sutton wrote:
> >   Ok, regarding roles - does admin imply voice, or should two role
> >   elements be given, one for admin and one for voice? Actually, in the
> >   examples, you have voice as a seperate element - should it not be a
> >   role?
> Hmm, I kinda like that idea. If everything is a role and we define the
> roles clearly enough, then when someone loses a role we can "decrement"
> them down to the next role by sending new presence for them including the
> role they've descended to (insert Dante reference here).
> So:
> <role level='owner'/> == God (at least in this room)
> <role level='admin'/> == demi-god, has special powers
> <role level='participant'/> == has voice ("speaker"?)
> <role level='auditor'/> == pleb with no voice in moderated room
> Naturally we could define other levels, as IRC does, but these seem to
> address most of our requirements. Thoughts?
I think some of the levels might do with better names. 

* participant	- I'm a little biased here, but 'voice' still makes more
                  sense to me than participant

* auditor 	- I would suggest 'user' both for understanding and
                  to keep with the usage of 'user' in other areas of
		  the jep.

Although not fond of admin and owner, they do fit in with the rest of
the phrasing in the JEP, so I can agree with those


David Sutton
Email: dsutton at legend.co.uk
Jabber: peregrine at legend.net.uk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20020922/b127ecd3/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list