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

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat
From:       Eike Hein <hein () kde ! org>
Date:       2017-08-10 20:18:12
Message-ID: EDB1D6A7-9E9F-491E-B3C9-B2A35189D8BC () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On August 11, 2017 4:22:04 AM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer <thomas.pfeiffer@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


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