[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:       Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano () tiscali ! it>
Date:       2017-08-11 5:06:02
Message-ID: B1048950-B5DF-4B4F-8146-7A4BBDD469A6 () tiscali ! it
[Download RAW message or body]

Il 10 agosto 2017 22:22:04 EEST, Thomas Pfeiffer <thomas.pfeiffer@kde.org> ha \
scritto:
> 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? 

I'm glad that this is the idea. But let me point out that in your original proposalof \
requirements:

https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/2017q3/003693.html

the bridges are in the section "Nice-to-haves" and not "Must-have". I also find the \
description a bit too much on the negative side:

"For the transitional period or for people who just refuse to change their habits"

This is one of the reasons why there seems to be a "ditch IRC" idea. Happy to hear \
that it's not the general feeling.

Also:
> 
> 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.

My impression is that everyone who advocated for IRC is saying: as long as it is \
bridged and functional I don't care about what other technologies can be used to \
access it, while I may disagree on the definition of obsolete.




-- 
Luigi


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