On 12 Aug 2015, at 08:54, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > There is no other proposal on the table. > > I'm backing the one we have.
To be fair, that’s because someone (me) went to the summit with a proposal I outlined, and everyone else (including you) said to get it off the table and that Carbons should get an update instead. One can’t (reasonably) both argue that no other proposals should be allowed, and that the only proposal we have should advance because there are no others. Carbons makes things better than not having Carbons or other approaches does, undoubtedly. The issue is (as I outlined at the summit) to fully address the ‘XMPP doesn’t do multi-account neatly’ thing we need more than just Carbons, we need something a bit Carbonsish, we need MAM, and we need read sync. I don’t believe (and no-one else argued, at the summit) that Carbons unmodified would fit the complete solution, while with some extension it would (or MAMsync would, which I largely proposed because I wanted to *not* disrupt Carbons as it is deployed, as you note - modified Carbons and MAMsync are roughly equivalent). Would it be useful for me to repeat the ‘big picture’ issue I outlined at the summit? /K
