[standards-jig] FW: [Foundation] Motion for Last Call - Chat State Notifications (JEP-0085)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Jan 19 20:18:28 UTC 2004


Forwarding to the Standards-JIG list from the members list...

/psa

----- Forwarded message from Alexander Gnauck <gnauck at myjabber.net> -----

From: Alexander Gnauck <gnauck at myjabber.net>
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation] Motion for Last Call - Chat State Notifications (JEP-0085)

Hi,

i still think we dont need that JEP. And i know that there are difficulties
and different opionions on the <id> tag. I started some threads to solve
this in the standards list. Without success :(. I think its no solution to
create a new completly different and not compatible JEP to solve the
'issues' in JEP22. Most clients use JEP22 for a very long time now. And it
works pretty well. JEP22 Also supports displayed and delivered. And i dont
wanna spend time on implementing JEP85 in our client. And im also not
interested to replace JEP22 with 85 or supporting both side by side. This
doesnt bring Jabber/XMPP forward. Its slows down all our development. I
wanna spend my time on implementing other important JEPS. When we make new
stuff or change smth then it should be compatible. MUC is the best example
for this.

Alex

members-admin at jabber.org wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:16:15PM +1100, Robert Norris wrote:
>> I move that a Last Call be issued for JEP-0085, Chat State
>> Notifications. Seconds?
>>
>> Rob.
>
> The results of this motion seem to have been inconclusive. There are
> 67 JSF members at this time (and at the time of motion). Rob motioned
> for a Last Call, and by my count the motion was seconded by Justin
> Karneges, Matthew Miller, and Jean-Louis Seguineau, which meets the
> 5% threshold for beginning a Last Call defined in Section 6 of
> JEP-0001. In addition, Sebastiaan Deckers mentioned that he has
> successfully implemented JEP-0085 and that he thinks it is a "clear
> improvement" over JEP-0022, but his emails did not include the phrase
> "I second the motion" or its equivalent. Some JSF members said we
> don't need JEP-0085 because they think JEP-0022 is fine. Others
> commented on the text or protocol, which is appropriate for the Last
> Call on the standards-jig mailing list. Because we've met the minimum
> threshold for a Last Call, I'm going to begin the Last Call. However,
> I am going to allot extra time to the Last Call (3 weeks) and I
> expect that anyone who has objections to this protocol will air them
> in that time so we can reach consensus and lay this issue to rest.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Peter

_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members


----- End forwarded message -----




More information about the Standards mailing list