[Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Sep 22 01:23:46 UTC 2011


On 9/21/11 7:02 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> 
> On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> 
>> On 22 September 2011 00:46, Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga at isode.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>>>> However I would consider it reasonable in a members-only room
>>>> for removal from the Owners List or the Admins List to result
>>>> in adding that person to the Members List.
>>> 
>>> The client could offer you that option, possibly as its default.
>>> 
>>> But let's talk wire semantics.
>> 
>> Wire semantics are simple. A members-only room cannot contain
>> someone with an affiliation of 'none'. Therefore if you set
>> someone's affiliation to 'none' they must be removed from the room,
>> regardless of what affiliation they had prior to the 'none'
>> affiliation.
>> 
>> Peter is correct too, in that it doesn't make much sense to kick
>> an admin from the room just because they lost their admin rights.
>> But in this case it's up to the client to do the right thing (make
>> them a member) instead.
> 
> So we're agreeing on what we expect from the server…
> 
> So, back to my concern, I don't think XEP 45 section 10.7 is all that
> clear in that it doesn't distinguish a move to member affiliation
> from a move to none, which leads to different actions for member-only
> rooms.   A reader could easily take the example as applies in all
> cases.   And I have a particular reader whose done just that, it
> seems.  Which is why I suggest it might be appropriate to add some
> clarification to section 10.7.

Yes, clarification would be good. I'll work that into the current round
of revisions.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/





More information about the Standards mailing list