Il 10 agosto 2017 22:22:04 EEST, Thomas Pfeiffer <[email protected]> ha scritto: >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 >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. >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: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/2017q3/003693.html 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 habits" 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. Also: > >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. 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. -- Luigi
