On Thursday 10 August 2017 00:15:21 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> Just in case my other email linking to the Etherpad was overlooked by some
> of you because it was buried too deep in the thread:
> Let's make this discussion productive by collecting the requirements KDE has
> for a chat / IM system to become our standard in this document:
> https://notes.kde.org/p/KDE_IM_requirements
> This is supposed to be the basis for our evaluation and ultimately decision,
> so if you don't contribute, you don't get to complain later ;)

The thing is, you suddenly changed communications mechanisms, added an 
authentication step, and changed the format for listing the requirements. That 
fragments the discussion between the original group participating, and the 
group that moves to the new(er) communications protocol.

And now you're saying that those that do not move to the new protocol, don't 
deserve to have (had) a voice?

This is a microcosm, a textbook example, a beautiful illustration of exactly 
what the culture-worries in the IM thread are about: you're going to lose 
people (for sure) and you're going to attract people (possibly), but the most 
effective thing to do in communication is to keep everyone in the loop.

(That said, I applaud the attempt to work together towards the creation of a 
list in a medium that is more conducive to reaching a "this is the document" 
than an email thread.)


Reply via email to