[Standards] Fwd: [jdev] [CFP] FOSDEM 2016, RTC devroom, speakers, volunteers neeeded

Dear all, Daniel Pocock sent out the attached Call for Participation for the FOSDEM 2016 Realtime Devroom, a devroom co-organised by the XSF and the telephony crowd. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten any XMPP-related talk proposals so far. I just noticed that the CfP never ended up in these other

Re: [Standards] [xmpp] Fwd: [jdev] [CFP] FOSDEM 2016, RTC devroom, speakers, volunteers neeeded

The original went straight into my Google spam folder. Conspiracy theories welcome. On 20 Nov 2015 20:31, "Ralph Meijer" wrote: > Dear all, > > Daniel Pocock sent out the attached Call for Participation for the > FOSDEM 2016 Realtime Devroom, a devroom co-organised by the XSF and

Re: [Standards] [Summit] [xmpp] Fwd: [jdev] [CFP] FOSDEM 2016, RTC devroom, speakers, volunteers neeeded

On 20/11/15 23:32, Dave Cridland wrote: > The original went straight into my Google spam folder. > > Conspiracy theories welcome. > I don't use gmail myself. Could you contact the support team and ask why this message was marked as spam and let me know so I can be more careful writing

Re: [Standards] [xmpp] [Summit] Fwd: [jdev] [CFP] FOSDEM 2016, RTC devroom, speakers, volunteers neeeded

I'm on email, it did not go to spam. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > On 20/11/15 23:32, Dave Cridland wrote: > > The original went straight into my Google spam folder. > > > > Conspiracy theories welcome. > > > > > I don't use gmail myself. Could

Re: [Standards] [xmpp] [Summit] Fwd: [jdev] [CFP] FOSDEM 2016, RTC devroom, speakers, volunteers neeeded

On 21/11/15 07:02, Arc Riley wrote: > I'm on email, it did not go to spam. Can anybody else comment on whether they got it or not? Does anybody who did or did not receive it see any headers indicating how Google's spam filters are classifying the message? I'm hearing far too many reports of

Re: [Standards] [xmpp] [Summit] Fwd: [jdev] [CFP] FOSDEM 2016, RTC devroom, speakers, volunteers neeeded

Everything is fine here. :-) /Steffen > On 21 Nov 2015, at 08:38, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > On 21/11/15 07:02, Arc Riley wrote: >> I'm on email, it did not go to spam. > > Can anybody else comment on whether they got it or not? > > Does anybody who did or did not receive it