# 2016-09-21 Council Meeting
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2016-09-21#15:15:30
## Roll call
- Lance (chairing)
- MattJ
- Dave Cridland
- Tobias
- Lance notes that Peter will be absent
## Date of next
2016-09-28 15:15:00 UTC
## AOB
### OMEMO Axolotl / Olm
- Dave Cridland
> -Original Message-
> From: Standards [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Cridland
> Sent: 21 September 2016 15:58
> To: XMPP Standards
> Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX) - Approach to options for per-user
> preferences
>
> On 21 September 2016 at 14:32,
On 21 September 2016 at 14:32, Steve Kille wrote:
> I have not been able to think of any additional sensible per-user
> preferences.
Users might well want to control whether they receive private messages
through the MIX or not.
In general, unless there's a compelling
MIX channel participants have the option to configure preferences for JID
visibility.There are some comments on the spec in this area, which I aim
to address soon.
The current specification is formulated so that an implementation can
provide implementation specific per-user preferences, which
There are a number of changes in 0.4 version of MIX
1. Clarification of MIX Proxy concept. There was useful discussion on the
XSF room, which I have tried to reflect in the document.
2. Clarification of a number of node definitions.
3. Make all nodes optional. Discussion in the XSF room
think the major difference is that there is very likely consensus that a
disclaimer should be added to Message Archiving, while I don't think that's
also true for deprecating it.
I also believe that we should do more to guide users towards the
"encouraged" protocols. We have this situation not