Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:58:21 -0300 Ben Langfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
> My point is this: > > 1. What appears to be a majority of the XSF does not believe that > Privacy Lists should be promoted as the correct way to achieve the > functionality it intended to provide. > 2. The XSF has a tool to indicate this. > 3. Your complaint is that for the XSF to make that indication public, > someone must first write a replacement XEP. > 4. You are not willing to write that XEP and further characterise > other developers who are similarly unwilling as customers of the XSF. > > I think, being fair, it's easy to see that your desire for an > alternative XEP which provides the same functionality as Privacy > Lists is appropriately treated as a request, but that you cannot use > it as a demand for someone to do some work, or to block #1. Others > have, earlier in this thread, made solid arguments for why a > deprecation does not logically require a replacement. > > I'm not trying to move the topic in any other direction. I'm trying > to say "chill; ask don't demand; accept that maybe no-one will oblige > your request and that that's ok and does not mean that the XSF is > broken". Well, if XSF solely decided to do what they think is right - it's OK. But in this case I wonder why we have this list? I also found the arguments as not solid. The only argument I saw is that the XEP is too complex. But in that case they should deprecate PubSub as well: it's also not widely adopted, probably even less adopted than privacy lists.
