[Standards-JIG] Re: Council decision on "Simplified MUC" proposal

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Mar 7 23:54:28 UTC 2005


On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:07:58PM -0500, Nolan Eakins wrote:

> Secondly this was intended to defer -0045 or replace it, not stand
> alongside it since -0045 has not aged gracefully and changes/fixes have
> not been done expediently. My primary concern with -0045 as it stands
> now are the inconsistencies that exist in it, namely the affiliation
> change table which specifies that admins AND owners can create/modify
> other admins while the use cases specify that only owners can do that. I
> chatted with PSA about this, and he agreed that admins shouldn't be
> creating/modifying admins. Yet -0045 has not been updated.

JEP-0045 has indeed been updated in my working copy and in CVS, and all
the changes discussed on this list have been incorporated. The Council 
has not yet approved the changes, which it must do in accordance with 
Section 9 of JEP-0001 before the next revision is officially published:

http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0001.html#mods

The Council discussed the changed version briefly during the last
meeting, but several Council members wanted more time to review the
changes before approving them since the changes were so extensive.

http://www.jabber.org/council/meetings/agendas/2005-02-11.html
http://www.jabber.org/muc-logs/council@conference.jabber.org/2005-03-03.html

These are matters of public record. The most up to date working copy is
here as linked from the meeting agenda:

http://www.saint-andre.com/jabber/jeps/jep-0045.html

Feel free to review that and tell me if there are still errors or
omissions.

As a general process note, it is always best to fix an existing JEP
rather than propose a new one. JEP-0045 is quite large and for that
reason changes to it are performed at a measured pace. In addition, new
functionality is best defined in a separate JEP if possible so that we
don't make JEP-0045 even larger than it already is. IMHO this is part of
what made some Council members uncomfortable with the MUC+ proposal.

/psa




More information about the Standards mailing list