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 - 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)
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)
> 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)
> 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)
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
