[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: How about an inclusive "and" approach instead of fighting IRC versus something new? (was: Re: Co
From:       Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano () tiscali ! it>
Date:       2017-08-10 8:22:10
Message-ID: E9CB2177-4D7B-4A5F-ACDA-D371921439F0 () tiscali ! it
[Download RAW message or body]

Il 10 agosto 2017 10:24:08 EEST, Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> 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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]