Here's a radical proposal: why don't we just work towards improving the IRC protocol, make the protocol available over WebSockets, and try to push the whole thing as a W3C informational RFC?
On 10 Aug 2017 10:18 pm, "Eike Hein" <[email protected]> wrote: > On August 11, 2017 4:22:04 AM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer < > [email protected]> wrote: > >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? > > > >> > 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 > >thread: > > > >> 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. > > I'm very much frustrated by the use of "protocols". > > Rocket.Chat for example is not a protocol. There's no spec for servers and > clients to follow, no governance model for that spec, no stability > guarantees. It's entirely implementation-defined. Which is meh. > > Of the contenders discussed so far, Matrix is a protocol. And it even > supports federation properly. It doesn't create walled gardens. > > Cheers, > Eike > -- > Plasma, apps developer > KDE e.V. vice president, treasurer > Seoul, South Korea >
