[Development] Svar: Changes to Freenode's IRC
I can’t speak for QtCentre as that is not something the Qt Project has any control over at all. But forum.qt.io is using NodeBB which is an OpenSource project, so unless I am missing something then it is free software. Andy Fra: Development på vegne av Jason H Dato: onsdag, 19. mai 2021 kl. 18:24 Til: Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer Kopi: development Emne: Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC > Hi! > > On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 12:30, Jason H wrote: > > > > Aren't all the kids these days moving to Discord? > > Discord is not free software, so it does not align well with a free > software project. QtCentre is not free software forum.qt.io is not free software What is the point of having alignment on the license of the service with the project license? Shouldn't the service be able to pick the best (for various definitions of "best") software for providing the service? Open Source servers may still require onerous terms of service to be used, the underlying code license implementing the service is a separate matter. I would say that as long as there is openly available clients for users to use, the license isn't as important as the terms of use for the service itself. (I'm sure Stallman would still disagree though) I'm open to preferring open services, but I just think the terms are more important than the license of the code base implementing the service, for me anyway. I often wonder if Qt is still qualifies as "free software" under the new management? (Stopping LTS for OpenSource users in the middle of a LTS series really shattered my trust in Digia, if you can't tell) ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
> -Original Message- > From: Jason H > Subject: Re: RE: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC > > > > Can we agree to keep the bashing out of this channel? > > You raise important questions. First, what is "bashing", and where is it > appropriate? Or, as I see my behavior, where is being critical of Digia > appropriate? I see you're quite interested in continuing discussing the LTS change, and Qt 6.0. Anyhow, I don't think there's much more to say for now. So, my wish is just that we keep discussions on topic. Furthermore, I hope that you, when you notice things like ads being shown on doc.qt.io, bring them forward with some goodwill regarding the people who are responsible for this. Thanks for considering, Kai ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
On 19/05/2021 22:41, Tuukka Turunen wrote: While many are still somewhat tuned in on the IRC channel it is clear that the traffic is very modest. It may be that having another system would work better, or perhaps the mailing lists and other available channels are adequate for the need. To say it all: * there's more activity in any given day on IRC rather than on the ML; * there's still super-important interaction happening on IRC rather than on the ML (like the weekly release meetings); * the IRC channels are actually actively moderated (unlike a certain series of recent episodes on the ML proves). So, if you want to stretch the "argument" up to this point, you'll just prove that the MLs are not adequate for the need. My 2 c, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
On 19/05/2021 22:12, Jason H wrote: where is it appropriate? Possibly, not in a thread that tries to talk about the Qt community presence on IRC...? Thanks, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
Hi Jason, You can check the planned modules for Qt 6.2 from: https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-roadmap-for-2021 The first snapshot of Qt 6.2 does not yet contain all of those, but then again we are still some weeks (2.5) away from FF. It is ok to discuss this type of matters in the mailing list, but it is not constructive to use it in order to derail other discussions. Like this one being about what to do with the IRC situation at hand. While many are still somewhat tuned in on the IRC channel it is clear that the traffic is very modest. It may be that having another system would work better, or perhaps the mailing lists and other available channels are adequate for the need. Yours, Tuukka Lähettäjä: Development käyttäjän Jason H puolesta Lähetetty: keskiviikkona, toukokuuta 19, 2021 11:16 ip. Vastaanottaja: Kai Köhne Kopio: development@qt-project.org Aihe: Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC > Can we agree to keep the bashing out of this channel? You raise important questions. First, what is "bashing", and where is it appropriate? Or, as I see my behavior, where is being critical of Digia appropriate? As a long-time Qt user (first commercial license was for 3.3.3) I've seen it go through many phases. Nokia LGPL Qt was so great, but I've watched erosion of that openness. I formulate my opinions based on ecosystems that I participate in, like Arduino, React, Node, etc. I see IMHO criticism of Digia is on the rise (https://www.qt.io/blog/commercial-lts-qt-5.15.3-released). I also get a lot of emails privately in agreement with my criticisms. So where is the proper feedback channel? I think the situation is exacerbated because of the confluence of two decisions on how the Qt 5.15/Qt 6 transition: 1. Qt 6 does not contain all the modules Qt 5.15 did. 2. Qt 5.15 was a LTS, but the releases after 5.15.2 are commercial only. If Qt 6 had contained all the modules that 5.15 did, OpenSource users would be able to switch to 6. >From https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/whatsnew60.html#removed-modules-in-qt-6-0 the >following modules are not in Qt6: Qt Android Extras androidextras Qt Bluetoothbluetooth Qt Charts charts Qt Data Visualization datavisualization Qt Graphical Effectsonly QML types Qt Location location Qt Mac Extras macextras Qt Multimedia multimedia Qt Multimedia Widgets multimediawidgets Qt NFC nfc Qt Positioning positioning Qt Purchasing purchasing Qt Remote Objects remoteobjects Qt Script qtscript Qt SCXMLscxml Qt Script Tools scripttools Qt Sensors sensors Qt Serial Bus serialbus Qt Serial Port serialport Qt Speech texttospeech Qt WebChannel webchannel Qt WebEnginewebenginecore Qt WebSockets websockets Qt WebView webview Qt Windows Extras winextras Qt X11 Extras x11extras Qt XML Patterns xmlpatterns Qt 6.1 then adds back (though some modules got rolled into other modules): Qt Charts Qt DataVis Qt Lottie Qt SCXML and StateMachine Qt VirtualKeyboard This leaves open source users of the Qt6 missing modules in a bind. I decline to attribute this to malice, but one way to fix the situation is to provide the 5.15 non-commercial updates until Qt6 is complete (6.2? allegedly includes Serial and WebSockets, but plenty aren't yet included, also: https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2020-November/040704.html) and then just have Qt 6 LTS as commercial only. I had also thought that the 5.15 LTS was only going to be limited by commerical-only offline packages, that online 5.15 LTS would still be fine. I would even be fine with there being only one LTS as opposed to how it is done now with multiple overlapping LTSs. (Currently 5.12 and 5.15 are LTS) I don't know how to square Digia's behavior with Qt's Open Governance model (https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Project_Open_Governance) ? I'm trying to where in the open source/governance stuff it was decided that making LTS commercial only was 1) approved by the Open Governance Model 2) exhibits the principals talked about in the Open Governance Model. Let me be clear: I still think Qt (the library) is really great amazing stuff and want to thank every single contributor for it. But this shenanigans with the licensing is well, shenanigans. Show me another "open source" project that goes commerical-only in the LTS branch? The criticism is warranted. By that alone, not to mention having a not-yet-viable-next-version. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
> Can we agree to keep the bashing out of this channel? You raise important questions. First, what is "bashing", and where is it appropriate? Or, as I see my behavior, where is being critical of Digia appropriate? As a long-time Qt user (first commercial license was for 3.3.3) I've seen it go through many phases. Nokia LGPL Qt was so great, but I've watched erosion of that openness. I formulate my opinions based on ecosystems that I participate in, like Arduino, React, Node, etc. I see IMHO criticism of Digia is on the rise (https://www.qt.io/blog/commercial-lts-qt-5.15.3-released). I also get a lot of emails privately in agreement with my criticisms. So where is the proper feedback channel? I think the situation is exacerbated because of the confluence of two decisions on how the Qt 5.15/Qt 6 transition: 1. Qt 6 does not contain all the modules Qt 5.15 did. 2. Qt 5.15 was a LTS, but the releases after 5.15.2 are commercial only. If Qt 6 had contained all the modules that 5.15 did, OpenSource users would be able to switch to 6. From https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/whatsnew60.html#removed-modules-in-qt-6-0 the following modules are not in Qt6: Qt Android Extras androidextras Qt Bluetoothbluetooth Qt Charts charts Qt Data Visualization datavisualization Qt Graphical Effectsonly QML types Qt Location location Qt Mac Extras macextras Qt Multimedia multimedia Qt Multimedia Widgets multimediawidgets Qt NFC nfc Qt Positioning positioning Qt Purchasing purchasing Qt Remote Objects remoteobjects Qt Script qtscript Qt SCXMLscxml Qt Script Tools scripttools Qt Sensors sensors Qt Serial Bus serialbus Qt Serial Port serialport Qt Speech texttospeech Qt WebChannel webchannel Qt WebEnginewebenginecore Qt WebSockets websockets Qt WebView webview Qt Windows Extras winextras Qt X11 Extras x11extras Qt XML Patterns xmlpatterns Qt 6.1 then adds back (though some modules got rolled into other modules): Qt Charts Qt DataVis Qt Lottie Qt SCXML and StateMachine Qt VirtualKeyboard This leaves open source users of the Qt6 missing modules in a bind. I decline to attribute this to malice, but one way to fix the situation is to provide the 5.15 non-commercial updates until Qt6 is complete (6.2? allegedly includes Serial and WebSockets, but plenty aren't yet included, also: https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2020-November/040704.html) and then just have Qt 6 LTS as commercial only. I had also thought that the 5.15 LTS was only going to be limited by commerical-only offline packages, that online 5.15 LTS would still be fine. I would even be fine with there being only one LTS as opposed to how it is done now with multiple overlapping LTSs. (Currently 5.12 and 5.15 are LTS) I don't know how to square Digia's behavior with Qt's Open Governance model (https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Project_Open_Governance) ? I'm trying to where in the open source/governance stuff it was decided that making LTS commercial only was 1) approved by the Open Governance Model 2) exhibits the principals talked about in the Open Governance Model. Let me be clear: I still think Qt (the library) is really great amazing stuff and want to thank every single contributor for it. But this shenanigans with the licensing is well, shenanigans. Show me another "open source" project that goes commerical-only in the LTS branch? The criticism is warranted. By that alone, not to mention having a not-yet-viable-next-version. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
On 19/05/2021 19:31, André Pönitz wrote: And now since we are on it: Can someone please remove the +r from #qt ? All other #qt-* channels at FreeNode are fine without. You could just ask... on IRC :-) It was done to prevent spam. #qt gets periodically rallied by spambots, which tend to ignore the other smaller channels in the #qt-* family. -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
> On 2021 May 19, at 18:21, Jason H wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 12:30, Jason H wrote: >>> >>> Aren't all the kids these days moving to Discord? >> >> Discord is not free software, so it does not align well with a free >> software project. > > QtCentre is not free software > forum.qt.io is not free software That’s unfortunate. But what we are talking about now is specifically for the open source community. Qt already uses Microsoft Teams internally (unfortunately) which is why you don’t see us much on IRC anymore. It’s unavoidable because we use it for video meetings, because of the usual M$ vendor lock-in (the meetings are scheduled via O365 and nobody knows better), and because for the first time the whole company is on one platform. (We never had many non-developers on IRC.) It’s just the way it tends to turn out in hierarchical corporations. Personally I’m still on IRC just in case, have my quassel client still running, but often ignore it for even longer periods than I did before, since so little happens there now. But this is a community thing. Limiting ourselves to free software with no commercial interest on either the client or server side helps narrow down the long list usefully. It should be federated or distributed, not centralized. Ideally it should have gateways to other systems (like IRC), so you have a chance of getting by with one client for more than one purpose, rather than a single-purpose greedy perma-tab in your browser alongside many others. It should be something that runs standalone, not requiring the browser (or electron, our competition) as the only solution. IMO we should be dogfooding… so a Qt client should be available. That still leaves several to choose from, but matrix has some advantages: it’s used by KDE, and there are phone apps (including on the Librem 5, which I’ve had on order for years and it still hasn’t shipped. Any week now hopefully.) Or just keep using IRC, and matrix users can gateway to it. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
On 19/05/2021 18:21, Jason H wrote:
QtCentre is not free software
forum.qt.io is not free software
What is the point of having alignment on the license of the service with the project
license? Shouldn't the service be able to pick the best (for various definitions of
"best") software for providing the service? Open Source servers may still
require onerous terms of service to be used, the underlying code license implementing the
service is a separate matter.
In fact, no one should be asking using free software on the server side,
"just because".
As long as
* the users' privacy is protected (e.g. users' data is never passed to
3rd parties, never used for marketing/commercial/research purposes, etc.);
* there are no terms/conditions for using the service that are
incompatible with the Qt Project's own goals and policies (e.g. there's
a transparent process for the network management);
* there's free _client_ software ("free" as in GPL speak: the "preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it" is provided, and so on)
* there's no registration required;
* the $newthing has proven stability, staff, resources, etc., and won't
disappear in a few months/years;
* ...
then anything is fine.
All other things being equal, the simplest measure would be to simply
move over to Libera. In any case, that requires 1) a project consensus,
2) someone representing the project to apply to Libera in order to
reclaim ownership of the #qt* channels (which appear to have been
already squatted). I guess that can be the same person who right now is
the contact for Freenode's #qt channels, although I have no idea who
that person is.
Thanks,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 05:03:24PM +0200, Ulf Hermann wrote: > > Rather than just move to another IRC server, we should really take > > this as an opportunity to move to another chat service as the > > official Qt Project chat. IRC has a terrible user experience and is > > not at all accessible for people who haven't been using it for > > decades like many of us. It does us a huge disservice when trying to > > attracting new contributors to point to our IRC. There are lots of > > better options out there now (which I see some of you on already), so > > lets move on already. > > The problematic point is "lots of better options". We need to agree on > one thing here, and it should be something that doesn't shut down > tomorrow. Maybe you can share some of the options that people already use. > > Considering that IRC, being all plain text with rather weak > authentication, was enough so far, I don't think privacy is such a big > deal here. Funnily enough, the only _forced_ privacy problem with IRC is that you have to disclose your IP and that's hard to avoid for technical reason. > The most important thing are the public channels and those > are, well, not private. "Privacy" is not (only) about what you say, it's also about who you are and what you did last summer. No registration means gives the possibility to avoid building up profiles, even in public communication. If you want one, fine, you can have that too. > Barrier to entry should indeed be lower than IRC, and for me that means > there shouldn't be an elaborate registration procedure. There shouldn't be _any_ mandatory registration. And now since we are on it: Can someone please remove the +r from #qt ? All other #qt-* channels at FreeNode are fine without. Andre' ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 02:37:26PM +, Andy Nichols wrote: > Hello, > > Rather than just move to another IRC server, we should really take > this as an opportunity to move to another chat service as the official > Qt Project chat. > > IRC has a terrible user experience and is not at all accessible for > people who haven't been using it for decades like many of us. It does > us a huge disservice when trying to attracting new contributors to > point to our IRC. I seriously doubt that the problem of not getting new contributors has a lot to do with IRC's "user experience". > There are lots of better options out there now > (which I see some of you on already), so lets move on already. Which of these options you have in mind * do require no registration -- and -- * are not _obviously_ driven by commercial interests? Andre' ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
> -Original Message- > From: Development On Behalf Of Jason H > Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2021 17:26 > To: giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com > Cc: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC > > Aren't all the kids these days moving to Discord? Slack is inefficient as the > history is rolling unless you pay for more. > > I would worry about moving it under Digia (tQtCo), because I'd expect them to > encumber the access to it(paywall, ads, tracking, etc*). I don't trust them. TQtC (my employer) already runs all the critical infrastructure for the Qt Project, as well as employing a large part of the developers. But running a chat server ... no, that would require too much trust. > Perhaps the KDE people would operate the Discord infrastructure? > > * Before you laugh, and say that is crazy, consider that the online Qt Docs > search results now have ads: > https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/search-results.html?q=camera shows 4 ads for me. And > I don't know of any other toolkit who serves their documentation with ads. > Take for example mozdev: > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/search?q=camera shows 0 ads. React, 0 > ads. I figure it's only a matter of time until the actual documentation pages > have ads too. (There may be good reasons for ads, but it's still not a good > look.) It's true that the embedded search on doc.qt.io sometimes shows ads. But it's not the result of evil TQtC making heaps of money with ads. It's just a side-effect of using google for embedded search, and has been like that since years (if not decades) ... We have actually recently started to look into it (again), see https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTWEBSITE-723 if you want to get updates. Can we agree to keep the bashing out of this channel? Thanks Kai ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
> Hi! > > On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 12:30, Jason H wrote: > > > > Aren't all the kids these days moving to Discord? > > Discord is not free software, so it does not align well with a free > software project. QtCentre is not free software forum.qt.io is not free software What is the point of having alignment on the license of the service with the project license? Shouldn't the service be able to pick the best (for various definitions of "best") software for providing the service? Open Source servers may still require onerous terms of service to be used, the underlying code license implementing the service is a separate matter. I would say that as long as there is openly available clients for users to use, the license isn't as important as the terms of use for the service itself. (I'm sure Stallman would still disagree though) I'm open to preferring open services, but I just think the terms are more important than the license of the code base implementing the service, for me anyway. I often wonder if Qt is still qualifies as "free software" under the new management? (Stopping LTS for OpenSource users in the middle of a LTS series really shattered my trust in Digia, if you can't tell) ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
On 5/19/21 11:57 AM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: Discord is not free software, so it does not align well with a free software project. +1 Kyle ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
Hi! On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 12:30, Jason H wrote: > > Aren't all the kids these days moving to Discord? Discord is not free software, so it does not align well with a free software project. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
Le mercredi, mai 19, 2021 5:24 PM, Shawn Rutledge a écrit : > > On 2021 May 19, at 17:14, Carl Schwan wrote: > > > > Le mercredi, mai 19, 2021 4:49 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development > > a écrit : > > > > > On 19/05/2021 16:37, Andy Nichols wrote: > > > > > > > Rather than just move to another IRC server, we should really take this > > > > as an opportunity to move to another chat service as the official Qt > > > > Project chat. IRC has a terrible user experience and is not at all > > > > accessible for people who haven't been using it for decades like many > > > > of us. It does us a huge disservice when trying to attracting new > > > > contributors to point to our IRC. There are lots of better options out > > > > there now (which I see some of you on already), so lets move on already. > > > > > > The mandatory question is always the same: which ones? > > > > > > Do they have goals, policies, end-user agreements that are compatible > > > with a free software project? Do they have strong privacy requirements? > > > Etc. > > > > Matrix is a nice alternative. It's free software, with strong privacy > > requirements (E2EE encryption for private chat and rooms, only need a user > > id + password > > to register, ...). Also there is currently at least 7 clients written in Qt: > > Nheko, NeoChat, Spectral, Quatermion, Kazv, Mirage and Fluffychat (Ubuntu > > touch edition). > > > > Disclaimer: I'm a co-maintainer of one of the client listed above (NeoChat). > > But which server then? Should we run our own? What if the admins don’t want > to? Maybe we should just use the KDE infrastructure? Then I wonder if any > changes there are on the way. One of the advantages of Matrix is that it's federated so you can have a room called #qt-labs:kde.org on KDE matrix server and in case someday Qt wants it's own server, it is perfectly possible to add a new alias #qt-labls:qt.io to the existing room and use it as main alias without having to move the existing users to a new room. Note that it would probably be a good idea to ask first to the KDE matrix admin before using KDE matrix infra :) Cheers, Carl Schwan https://carlschwan.eu KDE Developer ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
Aren't all the kids these days moving to Discord? Slack is inefficient as the history is rolling unless you pay for more. I would worry about moving it under Digia (tQtCo), because I'd expect them to encumber the access to it(paywall, ads, tracking, etc*). I don't trust them. Perhaps the KDE people would operate the Discord infrastructure? * Before you laugh, and say that is crazy, consider that the online Qt Docs search results now have ads: https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/search-results.html?q=camera shows 4 ads for me. And I don't know of any other toolkit who serves their documentation with ads. Take for example mozdev: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/search?q=camera shows 0 ads. React, 0 ads. I figure it's only a matter of time until the actual documentation pages have ads too. (There may be good reasons for ads, but it's still not a good look.) > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:49 AM > From: "Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development" > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC > > On 19/05/2021 16:37, Andy Nichols wrote: > > Rather than just move to another IRC server, we should really take this as > > an opportunity to move to another chat service as the official Qt Project > > chat. IRC has a terrible user experience and is not at all accessible for > > people who haven't been using it for decades like many of us. It does us a > > huge disservice when trying to attracting new contributors to point to our > > IRC. There are lots of better options out there now (which I see some of > > you on already), so lets move on already. > > The mandatory question is always the same: which ones? > > Do they have goals, policies, end-user agreements that are compatible > with a free software project? Do they have strong privacy requirements? Etc. > > Thanks, ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
On 2021 May 19, at 17:14, Carl Schwan mailto:c...@carlschwan.eu>> wrote: Le mercredi, mai 19, 2021 4:49 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development mailto:development@qt-project.org>> a écrit : On 19/05/2021 16:37, Andy Nichols wrote: Rather than just move to another IRC server, we should really take this as an opportunity to move to another chat service as the official Qt Project chat. IRC has a terrible user experience and is not at all accessible for people who haven't been using it for decades like many of us. It does us a huge disservice when trying to attracting new contributors to point to our IRC. There are lots of better options out there now (which I see some of you on already), so lets move on already. The mandatory question is always the same: which ones? Do they have goals, policies, end-user agreements that are compatible with a free software project? Do they have strong privacy requirements? Etc. Matrix is a nice alternative. It's free software, with strong privacy requirements (E2EE encryption for private chat and rooms, only need a user id + password to register, ...). Also there is currently at least 7 clients written in Qt: Nheko, NeoChat, Spectral, Quatermion, Kazv, Mirage and Fluffychat (Ubuntu touch edition). Disclaimer: I'm a co-maintainer of one of the client listed above (NeoChat). But which server then? Should we run our own? What if the admins don’t want to? Maybe we should just use the KDE infrastructure? Then I wonder if any changes there are on the way. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
Le mercredi, mai 19, 2021 4:49 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development a écrit : > On 19/05/2021 16:37, Andy Nichols wrote: > > > Rather than just move to another IRC server, we should really take this as > > an opportunity to move to another chat service as the official Qt Project > > chat. IRC has a terrible user experience and is not at all accessible for > > people who haven't been using it for decades like many of us. It does us a > > huge disservice when trying to attracting new contributors to point to our > > IRC. There are lots of better options out there now (which I see some of > > you on already), so lets move on already. > > The mandatory question is always the same: which ones? > > Do they have goals, policies, end-user agreements that are compatible > with a free software project? Do they have strong privacy requirements? Etc. Matrix is a nice alternative. It's free software, with strong privacy requirements (E2EE encryption for private chat and rooms, only need a user id + password to register, ...). Also there is currently at least 7 clients written in Qt: Nheko, NeoChat, Spectral, Quatermion, Kazv, Mirage and Fluffychat (Ubuntu touch edition). Disclaimer: I'm a co-maintainer of one of the client listed above (NeoChat). Cheers, Carl > > Thanks, > > -- > > Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer > KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company > Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com > KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts > > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
Rather than just move to another IRC server, we should really take this as an opportunity to move to another chat service as the official Qt Project chat. IRC has a terrible user experience and is not at all accessible for people who haven't been using it for decades like many of us. It does us a huge disservice when trying to attracting new contributors to point to our IRC. There are lots of better options out there now (which I see some of you on already), so lets move on already. The problematic point is "lots of better options". We need to agree on one thing here, and it should be something that doesn't shut down tomorrow. Maybe you can share some of the options that people already use. Considering that IRC, being all plain text with rather weak authentication, was enough so far, I don't think privacy is such a big deal here. The most important thing are the public channels and those are, well, not private. Barrier to entry should indeed be lower than IRC, and for me that means there shouldn't be an elaborate registration procedure. best, Ulf ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
On 19/05/2021 16:37, Andy Nichols wrote: Rather than just move to another IRC server, we should really take this as an opportunity to move to another chat service as the official Qt Project chat. IRC has a terrible user experience and is not at all accessible for people who haven't been using it for decades like many of us. It does us a huge disservice when trying to attracting new contributors to point to our IRC. There are lots of better options out there now (which I see some of you on already), so lets move on already. The mandatory question is always the same: which ones? Do they have goals, policies, end-user agreements that are compatible with a free software project? Do they have strong privacy requirements? Etc. Thanks, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 11:18, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote: > > Hi, > > Freenode, the network that hosts our IRC communities, is in the middle > of some important community changes. TL;DR: most of the volunteer staff > resigned in protest with what looks like a sell-out of the network and > its user data. > > > You can read some more details here: > > https://www.kline.sh/ > https://coevoet.fr/freenode.html > https://mniip.com/freenode.txt > > > While Freenode won't shut down tomorrow morning, this still raises some > questions whether Qt wants to keep its community there or move to > another network. Personally I would move to aother network. > (The ex-staff has founded another network, libera, > where most people are moving.) *Just to mention* another network that hosts many other communities there is OFTC. I don't currently have any opinion on whether we should move to one or the other. > Who's in charge of the online Qt communities? What's the process to > decide about this? Ditto. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
Hello, Rather than just move to another IRC server, we should really take this as an opportunity to move to another chat service as the official Qt Project chat. IRC has a terrible user experience and is not at all accessible for people who haven't been using it for decades like many of us. It does us a huge disservice when trying to attracting new contributors to point to our IRC. There are lots of better options out there now (which I see some of you on already), so lets move on already. Regards, Andy Nichols -Original Message- From: Development On Behalf Of Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 4:18 PM To: development@qt-project.org Subject: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC Hi, Freenode, the network that hosts our IRC communities, is in the middle of some important community changes. TL;DR: most of the volunteer staff resigned in protest with what looks like a sell-out of the network and its user data. You can read some more details here: https://www.kline.sh/ https://coevoet.fr/freenode.html https://mniip.com/freenode.txt While Freenode won't shut down tomorrow morning, this still raises some questions whether Qt wants to keep its community there or move to another network. (The ex-staff has founded another network, libera, where most people are moving.) Who's in charge of the online Qt communities? What's the process to decide about this? Thanks, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
[Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
Hi, Freenode, the network that hosts our IRC communities, is in the middle of some important community changes. TL;DR: most of the volunteer staff resigned in protest with what looks like a sell-out of the network and its user data. You can read some more details here: https://www.kline.sh/ https://coevoet.fr/freenode.html https://mniip.com/freenode.txt While Freenode won't shut down tomorrow morning, this still raises some questions whether Qt wants to keep its community there or move to another network. (The ex-staff has founded another network, libera, where most people are moving.) Who's in charge of the online Qt communities? What's the process to decide about this? Thanks, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
