On August 11, 2017 4:22:04 AM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer <thomas.pfeif...@kde.org> wrote: >On Donnerstag, 10. August 2017 20:38:11 CEST Christian Loosli wrote: >> Am Donnerstag, 10. August 2017, 20:31:22 CEST schrieb Thomas >Pfeiffer: >> > On Donnerstag, 10. August 2017 18:40:34 CEST Christian Loosli >wrote: >> > > Am Donnerstag, 10. August 2017, 17:25:14 CEST schrieb Jonathan >Riddell: >> > > > LibreOffice are having a similar discussion >> > > > >> > > > >https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/projects/msg02257.html >> > > > >> > > > They want to continue using IRC though which means >fragmentation would >> > > > continue. >> > > >> > > Maybe someone should inform them that there are bridges available >to >> > > avoid >> > > that. >> > > >> > > But maybe they'd simply ignore that, multiple times, and go on, >as some >> > > people seem to do in this thread as well *shrug* >> > >> > Who ignored the possibility of bridges? >> >> Why are we still discussing, then? As I pointed out twice: bridges >not only >> exist, but they are already in place. So unless people want to get >rid of >> IRC (or one of the other protocols, for that), it is pointless to >discuss >> which client/protocol to take, since it already either is bridged or >not >> bridgeable yet, but soon to be. >> And then the answer is clearly "IRC plus bridge", and both this >whole >> thread and the etherpad can be abandoned. > >Erm... no. IRC is a "legacy option" for people who don't want to use >other >protocols for whatever reason. That is perfectly fine for them, that's >why >we're keeping it. > >However, if the people who _do_ want to use something more modern end >up using >10 different things, then the benefits are practically non-existent. >Most of >the nice features of modern protocols work only among those who use the >same >one. > >Therefore, to get any benefit, we, the people who want something >modern, have >to agree on one thing. You, the old-school IRC lovers, can feel free to > >completely ignore us while we search for something that checks all our >requirements, we bridge it to IRC, everybody is happy. >Does that sound like a plan? > >> > Where does Martin Steigerwald's impression come from that people >want to >> > make this an "either/or decision"? >> > >> > The only person who seems to want to get rid of IRC is Jonathan, >> >> Okay, this is a qft moment. How can you possibly write "where does >$person >> impression come from that people want to make this an either/or >decision" >> when you write, at the very next line, that for someone, the thread >starter >> to be precise, it is? > >Jonathan Riddell. Singular. One guy. Not "people". > >> > I never said that. Martin Klapetek never said that. >> > Yes, we both think that IRC is not suitable as the _only_ chat tool >for a >> > community in 2017. >> >> I never pointed fingers at you. I said that some people seem to see >it as an >> either/or, which you agree with, and that people seem to ignore that >> bridges already exist and are in place (at KDE, not in general, >mind), so >> the logical conclusion is that, unless it becomes an either/or, this >whole >> thing is completely pointless. > >Again. Jonathan. One. >And he does not ignore bridges at all. To quote him from an email in >this very >thread: > >> Moving wholesale to something which has the advantages of IRC and the >> advantages of Telegram would avoid fragmentation that I see and it >> would avoid the faff of bridges which makes it even harder to follow >> who is who on each place. > >There they are. Bridges. Jonathan clearly acknowledges their existence, >but >considers them an impediment to the overall experience. >An opinion which he is perfectly entitled to, and which you won't >change just >by pointing something out to him that he already knows. > >> > Why do people feel something is threatened without people >threatening it? >> >> Next qft moment, how can you possibly write that, when above you >write that >> >> > The only person who seems to want to get rid of IRC is Jonathan, >> >> or how can you possibly call "getting rid of IRC" is not threatening >it? >> That is honestly beyond me. > >Simple explanation: How can the personal opinion of a single KDE >contributor >threaten anything? If whenever a single person in KDE dislikes >something I'd >feel its existence within KDE might be in danger, I'd spend my days in >a >corner shivering. > >I, for one, did not chime into this discussion because I wanted to get >rid of >IRC. I chimed in because I got the impression from some of the replies >that >there would be no need to use anything other than IRC, because it has >everything we need. >I still strongly disagree with that.
I'm very much frustrated by the use of "protocols". Rocket.Chat for example is not a protocol. There's no spec for servers and clients to follow, no governance model for that spec, no stability guarantees. It's entirely implementation-defined. Which is meh. Of the contenders discussed so far, Matrix is a protocol. And it even supports federation properly. It doesn't create walled gardens. Cheers, Eike -- Plasma, apps developer KDE e.V. vice president, treasurer Seoul, South Korea