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 

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 

> 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.

Reply via email to