Le vendredi 18 janvier 2019, 15:56:28 CET Georg Lukas a écrit :
> > 4) Outstanding Votes
> > One each for Georg and Link, on "Order-By" (expiring 2019-01-23).
>
> +1
>
> My detail objections still exist, but these are not sufficient to reject
> the acceptance of the XEP. The ML discussion has
* Jonas Schäfer [2019-01-08 17:55]:
> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
> XEP-0280.
>
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
> stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
Yes, it is a very important piece for modern multi-client
* Tedd Sterr [2019-01-16 19:43]:
> 1) Roll Call
> Apologies: Link, Georg
Sorry for missing it on short notice.
> 3) Proposed XMPP Extension: Cryptographic Hash Function Recommendations for
> XMPP - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/hash-recommendations.html
+1
> 4) Outstanding Votes
> One
2019-01-09 (expiring 2019-01-23)
Proposed XMPP Extension: Order-By -
https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/order-by.html
Dave: +0 (reserve the right to change that while others are still on-list)
Georg: +1 (still have detail objections, but not enough to reject; interested
in seeing how it
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 17:41, Ненахов Андрей
wrote:
> чт, 17 янв. 2019 г. в 15:38, Ralph Meijer :
> > This is explicitly not how our standards process has been set up. The
> > idea here is that having a published document as a starting point makes
> > it more likely that people are not
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:19 PM, Dave Cridland
wrote:
is that those same people will expect to be able to have their
specifications rubber-stamped through the process.
I fail to see how this is even possible within the XSF process.
If the spec is bad it will get -1 from the Council.
But I,
