From 1e81fbd2d89855cd719e0e8a3d89a75327ed08c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 18:55:58 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] md --- proposals/1772-groups-as-rooms.md | 11 ++++++----- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1772-groups-as-rooms.md b/proposals/1772-groups-as-rooms.md index ffd4803b0..febf4172d 100644 --- a/proposals/1772-groups-as-rooms.md +++ b/proposals/1772-groups-as-rooms.md @@ -105,11 +105,12 @@ it may be overengineered. Instead, the common case is wanting to define a group where some users are publicly visible as members, and others are not. This is what the current use cases require today. A simple way of achieving would be to create a subgroup -for the private members - e.g. have +sensitive:matrix.org and +sensitive- -private:matrix.org. The membership of `+sensitive-private:matrix.org` is set up -with `m.room.join_rules` to not to allow peeking; you have to be joined to see -the members, and users who don't want to be seen by the public to be member of -the group are added to the subgroup. +for the private members - e.g. have `+sensitive:matrix.org` and +`+sensitive-private:matrix.org`. The membership of +`+sensitive-private:matrix.org` is set up with `m.room.join_rules` to not to +allow peeking; you have to be joined to see the members, and users who don't +want to be seen by the public to be member of the group are added to the +subgroup. XXX: is there a use case today for having a group where users are unaware of the other users' membership? e.g. if I am a member of `+scandalous:matrix.org`