Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sep 22, 2006, at 9:59 AM, John Levine wrote:
That makes two. Were there others that tried but couldn't get in?
jabber.org was definitely down, but I had no trouble connecting using
my gmail account. (Gmail chat is jabber, for anyone who didn't know.)
Does this require the Google Talk client?
The Adium client does not seems to always allow auto registration but
instead assumes it is already registered. This may be due to a
corporate firewall issue however. Even once a server was found that
would register a new account (and was noted as allowing group chat),
502 server errors were reported when attempting to connect to the room
server. This is not the first time Jabber has failed, and not just with
this group. It seems doubtful that Jabber should be trusted at this time.
Compared to in the spring? I still don't see why.
If the key element of Jabber is to see a rapid display of +++ and ---,
then simply call for votes on the reflector.
Disagree. If you look at the logs, you'll see a lot of "no, I meant
<<foo>>" preceeding any such.
> It is ridiculous for
someone say on a jabber session "Convince me otherwise". A list should
allow better responses. The issue really seems not wanting to read.
This is where threads should be used.
If the WG don't want to use jabber, then of course, that's fine.
Speaking personally, I believe the experience last time was very
positive, both in terms of time-to-resolve issues and in terms of
more polite and productive interactions. So, I'm all for continuing
with jabber, but if I hear sufficient objections then of course
I'm entirely willing to try help get rough consensus via the mailing
list. (OTOH, if folks find the jabbering productive, then saying
that is also useful.)
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html