Re: [Standards] Removal of GC1.0 from MUC / XEP-0045

Thanks very much for doing this work. Without meaning to imply whether or not I agree with your conclusions, a couple of points of order: 1) While the Council can vote on the general principle, this has only the effect of a statement of principle or intent. As Chair, I'm happy to do this, I just

Re: [Standards] XEP-0045 MUC: am I still there?

Resurrecting the self-ping thread in light of the current Council agenda item. * Georg Lukas [2017-10-04 10:21]: > 2. Create a new, explicit am-I-joined IQ that a client can send to the >MUC JID. This seems to be the winner of the discussion from last October, even though it

Re: [Standards] Removal of GC1.0 from MUC / XEP-0045

On Dienstag, 10. April 2018 10:29:36 CEST Georg Lukas wrote: > It is this time of the month again. Georg is trying to fix MUC. > This time, I'm asking the Council to remove GC1.0 support from XEP-0045. +1. > In case this motion is approved, I'd prepare a PR against 0045 where the > respective

[Standards] Removal of GC1.0 from MUC / XEP-0045

It is this time of the month again. Georg is trying to fix MUC. This time, I'm asking the Council to remove GC1.0 support from XEP-0045. In case this motion is approved, I'd prepare a PR against 0045 where the respective section will be replaced by a stub, and where servers will be advised to