[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: Boudhayan Gupta <me () baloneygeek ! com>
Date: 2017-08-10 22:48:15
Message-ID: CAKDS=Nn60ti2VWPJ4E=du9=DoeE7JyL=m2REEBYA+sFOToDBzg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Here's a radical proposal: why don't we just work towards improving the IRC
protocol, make the protocol available over WebSockets, and try to push the
whole thing as a W3C informational RFC?
On 10 Aug 2017 10:18 pm, "Eike Hein" <hein@kde.org> wrote:
> 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
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="auto">Here's a radical proposal: why don't we just work towards \
improving the IRC protocol, make the protocol available over WebSockets, and try to \
push the whole thing as a W3C informational RFC?</div><div \
class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 Aug 2017 10:18 pm, "Eike \
Hein" <<a href="mailto:hein@kde.org">hein@kde.org</a>> wrote:<br \
type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On August 11, 2017 4:22:04 AM \
GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer <<a \
href="mailto:thomas.pfeiffer@kde.org">thomas.pfeiffer@kde.org</a>> wrote:<br> \
>On Donnerstag, 10. August 2017 20:38:11 CEST Christian Loosli wrote:<br> >> \
Am Donnerstag, 10. August 2017, 20:31:22 CEST schrieb Thomas<br> >Pfeiffer:<br>
>> > On Donnerstag, 10. August 2017 18:40:34 CEST Christian Loosli<br>
>wrote:<br>
>> > > Am Donnerstag, 10. August 2017, 17:25:14 CEST schrieb Jonathan<br>
>Riddell:<br>
>> > > > LibreOffice are having a similar discussion<br>
>> > > ><br>
>> > > ><br>
><a href="https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/projects/msg02257.html" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listarchives.<wbr>libreoffice.org/global/<wbr>projects/msg02257.html</a><br>
>> > > ><br>
>> > > > They want to continue using IRC though which means<br>
>fragmentation would<br>
>> > > > continue.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Maybe someone should inform them that there are bridges \
available<br> >to<br>
>> > > avoid<br>
>> > > that.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > But maybe they'd simply ignore that, multiple times, and go \
on,<br> >as some<br>
>> > > people seem to do in this thread as well *shrug*<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Who ignored the possibility of bridges?<br>
>><br>
>> Why are we still discussing, then? As I pointed out twice: bridges<br>
>not only<br>
>> exist, but they are already in place. So unless people want to get<br>
>rid of<br>
>> IRC (or one of the other protocols, for that), it is pointless to<br>
>discuss<br>
>> which client/protocol to take, since it already either is bridged or<br>
>not<br>
>> bridgeable yet, but soon to be.<br>
>> And then the answer is clearly "IRC plus bridge", and both \
this<br> >whole<br>
>> thread and the etherpad can be abandoned.<br>
><br>
>Erm... no. IRC is a "legacy option" for people who don't want to \
use<br> >other<br>
>protocols for whatever reason. That is perfectly fine for them, that's<br>
>why<br>
>we're keeping it.<br>
><br>
>However, if the people who _do_ want to use something more modern end<br>
>up using<br>
>10 different things, then the benefits are practically non-existent.<br>
>Most of<br>
>the nice features of modern protocols work only among those who use the<br>
>same<br>
>one.<br>
><br>
>Therefore, to get any benefit, we, the people who want something<br>
>modern, have<br>
>to agree on one thing. You, the old-school IRC lovers, can feel free to<br>
><br>
>completely ignore us while we search for something that checks all our<br>
>requirements, we bridge it to IRC, everybody is happy.<br>
>Does that sound like a plan?<br>
><br>
>> > Where does Martin Steigerwald's impression come from that \
people<br> >want to<br>
>> > make this an "either/or decision"?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The only person who seems to want to get rid of IRC is Jonathan,<br>
>><br>
>> Okay, this is a qft moment. How can you possibly write "where \
does<br> >$person<br>
>> impression come from that people want to make this an either/or<br>
>decision"<br>
>> when you write, at the very next line, that for someone, the thread<br>
>starter<br>
>> to be precise, it is?<br>
><br>
>Jonathan Riddell. Singular. One guy. Not "people".<br>
><br>
>> > I never said that. Martin Klapetek never said that.<br>
>> > Yes, we both think that IRC is not suitable as the _only_ chat tool<br>
>for a<br>
>> > community in 2017.<br>
>><br>
>> I never pointed fingers at you. I said that some people seem to see<br>
>it as an<br>
>> either/or, which you agree with, and that people seem to ignore that<br>
>> bridges already exist and are in place (at KDE, not in general,<br>
>mind), so<br>
>> the logical conclusion is that, unless it becomes an either/or, this<br>
>whole<br>
>> thing is completely pointless.<br>
><br>
>Again. Jonathan. One.<br>
>And he does not ignore bridges at all. To quote him from an email in<br>
>this very<br>
>thread:<br>
><br>
>> Moving wholesale to something which has the advantages of IRC and the<br>
>> advantages of Telegram would avoid fragmentation that I see and it<br>
>> would avoid the faff of bridges which makes it even harder to follow<br>
>> who is who on each place.<br>
><br>
>There they are. Bridges. Jonathan clearly acknowledges their existence,<br>
>but<br>
>considers them an impediment to the overall experience.<br>
>An opinion which he is perfectly entitled to, and which you won't<br>
>change just<br>
>by pointing something out to him that he already knows.<br>
><br>
>> > Why do people feel something is threatened without people<br>
>threatening it?<br>
>><br>
>> Next qft moment, how can you possibly write that, when above you<br>
>write that<br>
>><br>
>> > The only person who seems to want to get rid of IRC is Jonathan,<br>
>><br>
>> or how can you possibly call "getting rid of IRC" is not \
threatening<br> >it?<br>
>> That is honestly beyond me.<br>
><br>
>Simple explanation: How can the personal opinion of a single KDE<br>
>contributor<br>
>threaten anything? If whenever a single person in KDE dislikes<br>
>something I'd<br>
>feel its existence within KDE might be in danger, I'd spend my days in<br>
>a<br>
>corner shivering.<br>
><br>
>I, for one, did not chime into this discussion because I wanted to get<br>
>rid of<br>
>IRC. I chimed in because I got the impression from some of the replies<br>
>that<br>
>there would be no need to use anything other than IRC, because it has<br>
>everything we need.<br>
>I still strongly disagree with that.<br>
<br>
I'm very much frustrated by the use of "protocols".<br>
<br>
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.<br> <br>
Of the contenders discussed so far, Matrix is a protocol. And it even supports \
federation properly. It doesn't create walled gardens.<br> <br>
Cheers,<br>
Eike<br>
--<br>
Plasma, apps developer<br>
KDE e.V. vice president, treasurer<br>
Seoul, South Korea<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic