Re: How about an inclusive "and" approach instead of fighting IRC versus something new? (was: Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution)

[Martin Steigerwald]

Martin Klapetek - 10.08.17, 12:34:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Martin Steigerwald 
> wrote:
> > Martin Klapetek - 09.08.17, 16:12:
> > > > But KDE is not a tech startup. As people correctly wrote, KDE has a
> > > > very
> > > > long
> > > > history and contributors of all age. I'd rather be that than one of
> > > > the
> > > > many
> > > > tech startups with a bunch of little to no experience but fancy new
> > > > chat
> > > > systems, to be honest.  Do we really want and need to cater these 
> > > >mystical
> > > > tweens so much?
> > > 
> > > Yes. Old contributors will slowly fade away for various
> > > reasons, be it life, be it lack of energy, be it other commitments.
> > > Who's going to pick all those projects up after them? I'd like
> > > to think that young enthusiasts with lots of energy and potential,
> > > exactly what those heroes starting the original KDE were.
> > > And I think we should strive to attract younger talent that can
> > > be in it for the long run.
> > 
> > Well, I wonder since reading several posts here about one thing:
> > 
> > To from reading this post and other posts I got the impression that is
> > absolutely needs to be black or white:
> > 
> > *Either* IRC and nothing else *or* something new and nothing else.
> > 
> > Seriously?
> > 
> > I mean: Seriously?
> > 
> > 
> > There has been almost completely unnoticed posts mentioning bridges. Is
> > none
> > of this bridges capable to work well enough for KDE community use cases?
> > 
> > Why do you see the need to exclude either one of the groups?
> 
> As you're quoting my email - where are you reading this?
> That's not what I wrote at. all. I merely stated that we should
> cater to younger engineers. Not once I suggested and will not
> suggest to disregard the old timers. That was twisted in replies
> following my email.

Martin, I noted a general impression I got from the thread.

You are right, you didn´t write that.

This either/or approach is what in my perception was in this thread since 
quite a while… probably not (always) explicitely written out… but between the 
lines.

It might have been wiser to choose a different post – or even just don´t quote 
any post at all –  to reply to with this.

Sorry.

Martin
-- 
Martin

Re: How about an inclusive "and" approach instead of fighting IRC versus something new? (was: Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution)

[Martin Klapetek]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Martin Steigerwald 
wrote:

> Martin Klapetek - 09.08.17, 16:12:
> > > But KDE is not a tech startup. As people correctly wrote, KDE has a
> very
> > > long
> > > history and contributors of all age. I'd rather be that than one of the
> > > many
> > > tech startups with a bunch of little to no experience but fancy new
> chat
> > > systems, to be honest.  Do we really want and need to cater these
> mystical
> > > tweens so much?
> >
> > Yes. Old contributors will slowly fade away for various
> > reasons, be it life, be it lack of energy, be it other commitments.
> > Who's going to pick all those projects up after them? I'd like
> > to think that young enthusiasts with lots of energy and potential,
> > exactly what those heroes starting the original KDE were.
> > And I think we should strive to attract younger talent that can
> > be in it for the long run.
>
> Well, I wonder since reading several posts here about one thing:
>
> To from reading this post and other posts I got the impression that is
> absolutely needs to be black or white:
>
> *Either* IRC and nothing else *or* something new and nothing else.
>
> Seriously?
>
> I mean: Seriously?
>
>
> There has been almost completely unnoticed posts mentioning bridges. Is
> none
> of this bridges capable to work well enough for KDE community use cases?
>
> Why do you see the need to exclude either one of the groups?
>

As you're quoting my email - where are you reading this?
That's not what I wrote at. all. I merely stated that we should
cater to younger engineers. Not once I suggested and will not
suggest to disregard the old timers. That was twisted in replies
following my email.

Cheers
--
Martin Klapetek

Re: How about an inclusive "and" approach instead of fighting IRC versus something new? (was: Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution)

[Christian Loosli]

> What I’ve argued strongly against is the standpoint that we should stick
> with the status quo.

The status quo _is_ things with the advantages of Telegram or Matrix 
available, since these two are already bridged. 

Hence my earlier 

> Last but not least: if IRC really is so much of an issue, which I doubt: 
there are solutions readily available (Tg and Matrix bridge) or available in 
the future (Rocket bridge) which do resolve the problem whilst still 
maintaining compatibility for people who prefer what worked for 20 years and 
still works.  So the reasons to continue with a replacement I can see are 
either "We want to get rid of the other one completely and enforce this one" 
or "we want it NOW", both of which I heavily have to disagree with  [...]

If you want Rocket, for whatever reason, see my other post which was so far 
mostly ignored. 

Re: How about an inclusive "and" approach instead of fighting IRC versus something new? (was: Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution)

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

> On 10 Aug 2017, at 10:22, Luigi Toscano  wrote:
> 
> Il 10 agosto 2017 10:24:08 EEST, Martin Steigerwald  ha 
> scritto:
>> Martin Klapetek - 09.08.17, 16:12:
 But KDE is not a tech startup. As people correctly wrote, KDE has a
>> very
 long
 history and contributors of all age. I'd rather be that than one of
>> the
 many
 tech startups with a bunch of little to no experience but fancy new
>> chat
 systems, to be honest.  Do we really want and need to cater these
>> mystical
 tweens so much?
>>> 
>>> Yes. Old contributors will slowly fade away for various
>>> reasons, be it life, be it lack of energy, be it other commitments.
>>> Who's going to pick all those projects up after them? I'd like
>>> to think that young enthusiasts with lots of energy and potential,
>>> exactly what those heroes starting the original KDE were.
>>> And I think we should strive to attract younger talent that can
>>> be in it for the long run.
>> 
>> Well, I wonder since reading several posts here about one thing:
>> 
>> To from reading this post and other posts I got the impression that is 
>> absolutely needs to be black or white:
>> 
>> *Either* IRC and nothing else *or* something new and nothing else.
>> 
>> Seriously?
>> 
>> I mean: Seriously?
>> 
>> 
>> There has been almost completely unnoticed posts mentioning bridges. Is
>> none 
>> of this bridges capable to work well enough for KDE community use
>> cases?
> 
> I see it differently; I see people wanting something that also works with IRC 
> (so bridges, starting with the ones that already works) and people that don't 
> want IRC even if it's working in the background without then having to care 
> about it.

Who did ever say that? I certainly didn’t.
Throughout the entire discussion, I have always been 99.99% certain that we 
will end up with something that’s bridged to IRC.
Why would we not? There is not really a downside to it as long as the bridge 
works well, is there?

What I’ve argued strongly against is the standpoint that we should stick with 
the status quo.

Re: How about an inclusive "and" approach instead of fighting IRC versus something new? (was: Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution)

[Luigi Toscano]

Il 10 agosto 2017 10:24:08 EEST, Martin Steigerwald  ha 
scritto:
>Martin Klapetek - 09.08.17, 16:12:
>> > But KDE is not a tech startup. As people correctly wrote, KDE has a
>very
>> > long
>> > history and contributors of all age. I'd rather be that than one of
>the
>> > many
>> > tech startups with a bunch of little to no experience but fancy new
>chat
>> > systems, to be honest.  Do we really want and need to cater these
>mystical
>> > tweens so much?
>> 
>> Yes. Old contributors will slowly fade away for various
>> reasons, be it life, be it lack of energy, be it other commitments.
>> Who's going to pick all those projects up after them? I'd like
>> to think that young enthusiasts with lots of energy and potential,
>> exactly what those heroes starting the original KDE were.
>> And I think we should strive to attract younger talent that can
>> be in it for the long run.
>
>Well, I wonder since reading several posts here about one thing:
>
>To from reading this post and other posts I got the impression that is 
>absolutely needs to be black or white:
>
>*Either* IRC and nothing else *or* something new and nothing else.
>
>Seriously?
>
>I mean: Seriously?
>
>
>There has been almost completely unnoticed posts mentioning bridges. Is
>none 
>of this bridges capable to work well enough for KDE community use
>cases?

I see it differently; I see people wanting something that also works with IRC 
(so bridges, starting with the ones that already works) and people that don't 
want IRC even if it's working in the background without then having to care 
about it.


>
>Why do you see the need to exclude either one of the groups?

Exactly my point.


-- 
Luigi

How about an inclusive "and" approach instead of fighting IRC versus something new? (was: Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution)

[Martin Steigerwald]

Martin Klapetek - 09.08.17, 16:12:
> > But KDE is not a tech startup. As people correctly wrote, KDE has a very
> > long
> > history and contributors of all age. I'd rather be that than one of the
> > many
> > tech startups with a bunch of little to no experience but fancy new chat
> > systems, to be honest.  Do we really want and need to cater these mystical
> > tweens so much?
> 
> Yes. Old contributors will slowly fade away for various
> reasons, be it life, be it lack of energy, be it other commitments.
> Who's going to pick all those projects up after them? I'd like
> to think that young enthusiasts with lots of energy and potential,
> exactly what those heroes starting the original KDE were.
> And I think we should strive to attract younger talent that can
> be in it for the long run.

Well, I wonder since reading several posts here about one thing:

To from reading this post and other posts I got the impression that is 
absolutely needs to be black or white:

*Either* IRC and nothing else *or* something new and nothing else.

Seriously?

I mean: Seriously?


There has been almost completely unnoticed posts mentioning bridges. Is none 
of this bridges capable to work well enough for KDE community use cases?

Why do you see the need to exclude either one of the groups?

I know for me personally: Its either IRC or something that feels like it, is 
as lightwight as it, as standardized as it and as free software as it (i.e. 
offers free software server and client). I use Quassel IRC and I am perfectly 
fine with following IRC channels using it. Heck even most other communities I 
communicate with like for games are on IRC. Basically it is all there.

But… I wouldn´t like to exclude anyone who does not want to use IRC either… so 
can´t there be one chat system with IRC + something new?

Also I think for a community like KDE there needs to be balance between:

- How much does KDE community adapts to its potential new members.

- How much potential new members adapt to the KDE community.

There needs to be a balance between what works already – and I get the 
impression that both mailing lists and IRC do work for KDE community, just 
look at the accomplishments, just look at the achievements and you can know 
that beyond any trace of doubt – and something new that could work for new 
people. Also do we really know who these potential new people are and what 
their preferences would be without a survey?

I have been in Spain lately, and I learnt a little bit of the language. 
Seriously I wouldn´t expect anyone to speak german just cause I happen to have 
my holidays there. However if someone there can speak some english or even a 
few words of german whenever I got stuck I appreciated it as well.

I follow developements regarding new chat systems myself, I see that IRC is 
dated… yet I also see that it works. For me it is no "either / or"… and I 
kindly ask you to consider that there can be an "and" that is more inclusive 
than any of the "either / or" options. Requirement for this "and" would be 
bridging, i.e. no matter which chat system out of the supported ones one uses… 
she will always see all the messages from people who use other supported chat 
systems.

From previously just reading this thread I am almost completely certain that 
there won´t be an agreement on one of the "either / or" options. Without 
recycling this further it can be pretty much clear that here are people who 
favor IRC and people who favor something new. So rather than wasting any more 
energy fighting against one another over which option will win… I think the way 
forward would be to find a way to make both groups happy.

Thank you for considering my plea to bring some sanity to this discussion 
again.

Thanks,
-- 
Martin