kevin.smith at isode.com
Thu Jun 25 17:04:55 UTC 2015
On 25 Jun 2015, at 16:59, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> Removing a widely deployed feature doesn't strike me as a viable option.
Well, if we s/widely deployed/widely required/ then I agree. But not baking something into the MUC2 core doesn’t necessarily mean removing the feature. If we’re going to try to blank-canvas a MUC replacement, I’d like to try and look at options as widely as we can.
For example, (assuming semi-anonymousness is a requirement) is it possible to not require anything other than non-anonymous in MUC2, but discuss (either in spec or out of spec) how one would do anonymising if one wanted to?
I don’t know.
I would like us to Get This Right, though. People have been mumbling about replacing MUC for years, and I’ve always been resistant; the discussions at the summit this year persuaded me that we finally have requirements that MUC1 can’t easily meet, but I really do not want us to do MUC2 now and MUC3 in 2017 to fix the stuff we got wrong in MUC2.
More information about the Standards