Am Donnerstag, 10. August 2017, 21:22:04 CEST schrieb Thomas Pfeiffer:
> 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
> > > > > 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.
Friendly reminder that
- the protocols that are bridgeable are bridged and already usable
- the people who want to switch to these already can
- the people who don't want to already can.
This is the status quo, thus saying that unless you plan to get rid of things
or move things, the discussion is pointless, as it represents the status quo.
> > > 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".
Not only that people is entirely allowed and correct in English, but also see
above: unless you want to move / change, the debate is pointless, I assume
that is why various people, not only me, got that impression.
> > > 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.
> 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.
Nope, see above. People pointed out, various times by now, that IRC is the
lowest common denominator and that the rest not only can be bridged, but is
bridged. So people who want to move to any of these protocols already can, and
there is no point to discuss benefits and disadvantages of the various
protocols, since right now you can have any of them.
So, once more: unless you want to get rid of one, this whole thing is
pointless. If you, or a group, prefer Matrix: you can use that, right now,
this very second. If you prefer Telegram: same.
If people want to throw something fancy at 20 year olds who can't or don't
want to handle IRC: already possible, with or without this thread and the
If people want to switch themselves: already possible, with or without this
thread and the etherpad.
The original topic of this thread is _move_ to rocket, and the title of the
etherpad is to find an IM that suits people best. So either you want to
switch, then the cornerns of the people mentioned are fully valid, or you
don't, then you already have everything and the whole thing is pointless