I've started to wonder if we really want to do that.

Destroy option is available under "gear" button if user has permission to do so. (and that is OK).

The issue with asking if user wants to destroy channel (when it clicks `X) is that we discussed some time ago that using that is not a good experience. Moreover, it is impossible (at least now) to know if that is public channel or "invite only" channel. Why?

Currently, when we are leaving MUC room if we have permissions to destroy a room we are always asked. That already lead to many cases when people destroyed rooms which they just wanted to leave, ie. some public rooms.

Due to that, after some consideration, I think that leaving channel by default is "correct" behaviour as I do not have a knowledge (at the time user clicks X) if that is public channel or invite-only.

As a solution, I'm considering a way to destroy "empty" invite-only channel and making every participant an admin of such channel. I'm not sure if that would be always correct, but it is a thing to consider.

Currently, when we are leaving MUC room if we have permissions to destroy a room we are always asked. That already lead to many cases when people destroyed rooms which they just wanted to leave, ie. some public rooms.

Actually it was added because previously it was to easy to destroy the room (as said #issue #100 - simply closing the room was destroying it)

As a solution, I'm considering a way to destroy "empty" invite-only channel and making every participant an admin of such channel. I'm not sure if that would be always correct, but it is a thing to consider.

IMHO this is sensible and kinda suggested in #issue #305. So we have following cases:

1. leave empty channel -> destroy it
2. leave non empty channel: a) if there still other admin users -> do nothing (there is still someone to manage the channel) b) if there are no other admin user -> either use the oldest (join-time wise) user that joined automatically or force user to select next admin.

Yes, but I would like to add automatic cleanup of empty channels on the server side - it is easy to know when everyone left. (reassignment and removal would by done by the client as well in case when server does not support that).

Agreed (but only for private/invitation-only channels?)

I've added dialogs asking for a decision (pass ownership, leave, destroy) and asking for a successor as well. This should cover #issue #305 as well.