[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...


----- 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)


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.


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

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

More information about the Standards mailing list