> On 10 Aug 2017, at 10:22, Luigi Toscano <luigi.tosc...@tiscali.it> wrote:
> Il 10 agosto 2017 10:24:08 EEST, Martin Steigerwald <mar...@lichtvoll.de> ha
>> Martin Klapetek - 09.08.17, 16:12:
>>>> But KDE is not a tech startup. As people correctly wrote, KDE has a
>>>> history and contributors of all age. I'd rather be that than one of
>>>> tech startups with a bunch of little to no experience but fancy new
>>>> systems, to be honest. Do we really want and need to cater these
>>>> 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.
>> I mean: Seriously?
>> There has been almost completely unnoticed posts mentioning bridges. Is
>> of this bridges capable to work well enough for KDE community use
> 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.
Who did ever say that? I certainly didn’t.
Throughout the entire discussion, I have always been 99.99% certain that we
will end up with something that’s bridged to IRC.
Why would we not? There is not really a downside to it as long as the bridge
works well, is there?
What I’ve argued strongly against is the standpoint that we should stick with
the status quo.