Il 10 agosto 2017 22:22:04 EEST, Thomas Pfeiffer <> ha 
>On Donnerstag, 10. August 2017 20:38:11 CEST Christian Loosli wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, 10. August 2017, 20:31:22 CEST schrieb Thomas
>> > On Donnerstag, 10. August 2017 18:40:34 CEST Christian Loosli
>> > > Am Donnerstag, 10. August 2017, 17:25:14 CEST schrieb Jonathan
>> > > > LibreOffice are having a similar discussion
>> > > > 
>> > > >
>> > > > 
>> > > > They want to continue using IRC though which means
>fragmentation would
>> > > > continue.
>> > > 
>> > > Maybe someone should inform them that there are bridges available
>> > > 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
>> which client/protocol to take, since it already either is bridged or
>> bridgeable yet, but soon to be.
>> And then the answer is clearly  "IRC plus bridge", and both this
>> thread and the etherpad can be abandoned.
>Erm... no. IRC is a "legacy option" for people who don't want to use
>protocols for whatever reason. That is perfectly fine for them, that's
>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
>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? 

I'm glad that this is the idea. But let me point out that in your original 
proposalof requirements:

the bridges are in the section "Nice-to-haves" and not "Must-have". I also find 
the description a bit too much on the negative side:

"For the transitional period or for people who just refuse to change their 

This is one of the reasons why there seems to be a "ditch IRC" idea. Happy to 
hear that it's not the general feeling.

>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
>there would be no need to use anything other than IRC, because it has 
>everything we need.
>I still strongly disagree with that.

My impression is that everyone who advocated for IRC is saying: as long as it 
is bridged and functional I don't care about what other technologies can be 
used to access it, while I may disagree on the definition of obsolete.


Reply via email to