[Standards] Deprecating Privacy Lists

Evgeny Khramtsov xramtsov at gmail.com
Mon Oct 12 17:12:23 UTC 2015

Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:58:21 -0300
Ben Langfeld <ben at langfeld.me> wrote:

> My point is this:
> 1. What appears to be a majority of the XSF does not believe that
> Privacy Lists should be promoted as the correct way to achieve the
> functionality it intended to provide.
> 2. The XSF has a tool to indicate this.
> 3. Your complaint is that for the XSF to make that indication public,
> someone must first write a replacement XEP.
> 4. You are not willing to write that XEP and further characterise
> other developers who are similarly unwilling as customers of the XSF.
> I think, being fair, it's easy to see that your desire for an
> alternative XEP which provides the same functionality as Privacy
> Lists is appropriately treated as a request, but that you cannot use
> it as a demand for someone to do some work, or to block #1. Others
> have, earlier in this thread, made solid arguments for why a
> deprecation does not logically require a replacement.
> I'm not trying to move the topic in any other direction. I'm trying
> to say "chill; ask don't demand; accept that maybe no-one will oblige
> your request and that that's ok and does not mean that the XSF is
> broken".

Well, if XSF solely decided to do what they think is right - it's OK.
But in this case I wonder why we have this list?
I also found the arguments as not solid. The only argument I saw is
that the XEP is too complex. But in that case they should deprecate
PubSub as well: it's also not widely adopted, probably even less adopted
than privacy lists.

More information about the Standards mailing list