Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community

[Lorn Potter]

On 21/5/21 1:16 AM, Jason H wrote:

  I'd like to see Qt take on the web, the pieces are there, with WebAssembly 
and QHttpServer. The web meanwhile has gotten more Qt-like with webpack and 
other compilation-step tools. I think this would really embiggen the Qt 
community


+2!
Qt Everywhere!

--
Lorn Potter
Freelance Qt Developer. Platform Maintainer Qt WebAssembly, Maintainer 
QtSensors

Author, Hands-on Mobile and Embedded Development with Qt 5

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Elvis Stansvik]

Den fre 21 maj 2021 kl 20:25 skrev Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
:
>
> On 21/05/2021 20:03, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> >
> > Before simply voting for new irc provider, I would still prefer to have
> > the QtCS discussion on the topic.
> >
> > We should also discuss and define what is the intention / intentions of
> > the channels, because this can affect the choice.
>
> I am NOT proposing any changes of the current intentions, usages,
> administration, policies; just a mere move of the network. Any further
> discussion on the evolution of the online chat services can certainly
> happen at QtCS. Really, this thread blew completely out of scope. I'm
> pretty sure that if the whole Freenode thing didn't explode, no one
> would be discussing the point of "improving the Qt communities" (given
> no one has EVER raised that objection in the last, dunno, N years).
>
> Right now, the reality is that freenode is short-staffed, being rallied
> by spambots (which are not being stopped promptly because...
> short-staffed), and several people (including me) don't want to spend
> there one second more than necessary. A lot of big projects have already
> decided to move. For those who still care about IRC, waiting another
> month to get a decision is fundamentally a death sentence for those
> channels.
>
>
> > If it is for contributors to discuss with each other and release team
> > meetings it may be different than if intention is to discuss with Qt
> > users. For the latter purposes we should have a bit wider discussion and
> > also plan how to best link this to the needs of today. For the former we
> > should also consider how to attract new contributors, not only think
> > what works best for existing. That being important as well.
> >
> > Another important thing to note is that everyone developing Qt is now
> > pretty much focused in completing thing for Qt 6.2 FF. So now is not the
> > best time to plan how to develop the communication channels.
>
> And in fact I'm not asking for ANY change whatsoever, except for a
> network move. Then, keep exactly what we're doing today.
> If people can find the time to participate to Dev/Des, and are on IRC,
> they can find 10 minutes to express their preference on this matter.
> Even a failed vote is OK: it means Libera.Chat can release the block on
> the #qt* namespace, and the Qt community there can re-acquire and
> re-organize those channels.

I vote move to Libera.Chat, and also agree discussions about other
chat services should be held later.

Elvis

>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
> KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
> Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
> KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Renamed (again): Qt licensing shenanigans (again)

[Scott Bloom]

The sad part in all this.. the amount of negative discussion about Qt, when 
TQtC could fix this easily, simply maintain LTS at the opensource license.

If they want patch releases in general not to be open source fixes, fine.  Ie 
6.1 is opensource, 6.1.1 is not..  But when a LTS is released, that is major 
build and all its patches are open source .

It solves their problem of spending too many resources on unpaid for code, and 
the community that supports them, doesn’t get left out in the cold on a major 
version their projects are sticking to.

Maybe they follow the PT barnum any press is good press a little to far?


-Original Message-
From: Development  On Behalf Of Jason H
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 11:20
To: Rui Oliveira 
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Renamed (again): Qt licensing shenanigans (again)

>
> I agree with Jason: Doing the "no LTS for FOSS" at the moment of the
> 5.15->6.0 change was really a foul play, imho.

I'm currently attributing it to a license decision that for any other release 
(say if there was a 5.16) would be fine, but in reality was temporally coupled 
to the release of 6.0, and what 6.0 composed, which was an unusual and separate 
decision. And these decisions could have been made separately by different 
people and not realize the implications of the two combined until it was 
pointed out.

It's a mistake that can be easily rectified. But what happens next is going to 
show the true character of the Qt Corporation. If the decision was made 
intentionally, or even so but isn't rectified, then that's going to affect 
those open source users who don't legally need a license, don't want or need Qt 
6, but just need access to patches to keep users happy. I can't really see that 
as s motivation for a commercial license money grab, because in theory, by 6.2 
things will be back to normal. Starving open source license users of patch 
level changes to get them to  convert to commercial for what, a year? Doesn't 
make sense so me, so I'm not attributing it to malice.

What I'd like to see is:
- Open Source LTS patches restored until 6.x is at parity.
- An agreement that never again will Qt have a Major version release
  that isn't in parity with the previous feature release (meaning dropped
  feature have to be dropped Before the major release for at least one version)

Ultimately I think this was a learning experience.






___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development]

On 21/05/2021 20:03, Tuukka Turunen wrote:


Before simply voting for new irc provider, I would still prefer to have 
the QtCS discussion on the topic.


We should also discuss and define what is the intention / intentions of 
the channels, because this can affect the choice.


I am NOT proposing any changes of the current intentions, usages, 
administration, policies; just a mere move of the network. Any further 
discussion on the evolution of the online chat services can certainly 
happen at QtCS. Really, this thread blew completely out of scope. I'm 
pretty sure that if the whole Freenode thing didn't explode, no one 
would be discussing the point of "improving the Qt communities" (given 
no one has EVER raised that objection in the last, dunno, N years).


Right now, the reality is that freenode is short-staffed, being rallied 
by spambots (which are not being stopped promptly because... 
short-staffed), and several people (including me) don't want to spend 
there one second more than necessary. A lot of big projects have already 
decided to move. For those who still care about IRC, waiting another 
month to get a decision is fundamentally a death sentence for those 
channels.



If it is for contributors to discuss with each other and release team 
meetings it may be different than if intention is to discuss with Qt 
users. For the latter purposes we should have a bit wider discussion and 
also plan how to best link this to the needs of today. For the former we 
should also consider how to attract new contributors, not only think 
what works best for existing. That being important as well.


Another important thing to note is that everyone developing Qt is now 
pretty much focused in completing thing for Qt 6.2 FF. So now is not the 
best time to plan how to develop the communication channels.


And in fact I'm not asking for ANY change whatsoever, except for a 
network move. Then, keep exactly what we're doing today.
If people can find the time to participate to Dev/Des, and are on IRC, 
they can find 10 minutes to express their preference on this matter. 
Even a failed vote is OK: it means Libera.Chat can release the block on 
the #qt* namespace, and the Qt community there can re-acquire and 
re-organize those channels.



Thanks,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Renamed (again): Qt licensing shenanigans (again)

[Jason H]

>
> I agree with Jason: Doing the "no LTS for FOSS" at the moment of the
> 5.15->6.0 change was really a foul play, imho.

I'm currently attributing it to a license decision that for any
other release (say if there was a 5.16) would be fine, but in reality
was temporally coupled to the release of 6.0, and what 6.0 composed, which
was an unusual and separate decision. And these decisions could have been
made separately by different people and not realize the implications
of the two combined until it was pointed out.

It's a mistake that can be easily rectified. But what happens next is
going to show the true character of the Qt Corporation. If the decision
was made intentionally, or even so but isn't rectified, then that's
going to affect those open source users who don't legally need a license,
don't want or need Qt 6, but just need access to patches to keep
users happy. I can't really see that as s motivation for a commercial
license money grab, because in theory, by 6.2 things will be back to
normal. Starving open source license users of patch level changes to get
them to  convert to commercial for what, a year? Doesn't make sense so
me, so I'm not attributing it to malice.

What I'd like to see is:
- Open Source LTS patches restored until 6.x is at parity.
- An agreement that never again will Qt have a Major version release
  that isn't in parity with the previous feature release (meaning dropped
  feature have to be dropped Before the major release for at least one version)

Ultimately I think this was a learning experience.






___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Tuukka Turunen]

Hi,

Before simply voting for new irc provider, I would still prefer to have the 
QtCS discussion on the topic.

We should also discuss and define what is the intention / intentions of the 
channels, because this can affect the choice.

If it is for contributors to discuss with each other and release team meetings 
it may be different than if intention is to discuss with Qt users. For the 
latter purposes we should have a bit wider discussion and also plan how to best 
link this to the needs of today. For the former we should also consider how to 
attract new contributors, not only think what works best for existing. That 
being important as well.

Another important thing to note is that everyone developing Qt is now pretty 
much focused in completing thing for Qt 6.2 FF. So now is not the best time to 
plan how to develop the communication channels.

Yours,

Tuukka


Lähettäjä: Development  käyttäjän Giuseppe 
D'Angelo via Development  puolesta
Lähetetty: perjantaina, toukokuuta 21, 2021 7:07 ip.
Vastaanottaja: development@qt-project.org
Aihe: Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

On 21/05/2021 14:40, Cristián Maureira-Fredes wrote:
> @Giuseppe regarding the consensus, should we do a thread for voting
> the movement to libera only? or you think we could agree differently
> of doing the move.

Yes, I'm afraid that I screwed this one up, apologies :(

I'll guess I'll start a new thread, *only* for voting.

Thank you,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Renamed (again): Qt licensing shenanigans (again)

[Rui Oliveira]

Every conversation ends up in what is already the C++ subject of the year :D

I've been vocally critical of what has happened, same as everybody else, 
even though I'm a mere passive observer, for now...


But lemme say some things:

I agree with Jason: Doing the "no LTS for FOSS" at the moment of the 
5.15->6.0 change was really a foul play, imho.


Everybody knew 6.0 was a subset of Qt, and that 6.x would be that way 
for a long while... It happened at the most harmful time, really... If 
it was on 6.2 and I had to move to 6.3 instead of 6.2.3, fine, I prefer 
to do that anyway... Now 5.15.2 or... Nothing viable, really...


Other thing I noticed was this:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/QTCOM.HE/key-statistics?p=QTCOM.HE

Over 300% year-over-year change. Whatever the Qt company is doing, it's 
resonating with its investors. And don't be fooled. A for profit company 
serves to generate revenue. Any product or service it sells is the means 
to achieve that revenue. This is what drives decisions. Not a bunch of 
angry programmers.


No official FOSS edition offline installers, no FOSS LTS binaries (and 
no source for 12 months), mandatory registration, are all aspects that 
don't particularly drive community contributions. I might be wrong... 
There's also the aspect if its in the interest of TQtC to have those 
contributions...  I mean, Qt has some commercial-only offerings, and 
embeded/auto seem to be the driver of the company right now... The 
income from buyers of the automotive suite maybe are worth the man-hours 
of hypothetical FOSS contributors? I wouldn't know, but that does cross 
my mind.


Honestly, and this is repeating myself, I look at other ecosystems like 
C# and I see webasm and desktop having renewed interest and new and 
interesting tech stacks... Even on the C++ world, we now have things 
like DearImGui... Of course the later is not for any half-reasonable 
desktop application (imho) but still...


It's so weird the situation around this library, its technology and what 
it stands to do...


We'll probably circle around this discussion again and again during 
times to come, so I'm just leaving my 2 cents.


Let's code.
Rui

Às 16:58 de 21/05/2021, Jason H escreveu:



Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 at 8:57 AM
From: "Kai Köhne" 
To: "Benjamin TERRIER" , "development@qt-project.org" 

Subject: Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community


From: Development  On Behalf Of Benjamin 
TERRIER
Subject: Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community

On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 17:18, Jason H  wrote:


Anyway, these issues aren't insurmountable, apparently they can be changed with 
the stroke of a pen. (Where is Qt's Open Governance? - still think I 
misunderstood what that was about)

Since TQC alone can decide that the Qt Project won't release Qt 5.15.3+  
without consulting the mailing list and going through the lazy consensus 
decision process, I think it's safe to say that Open Governance is dead.

I don't claim that the LTS decision was fully in line with the Open Governance 
process as stated in https://quips-qt-io.herokuapp.com/quip-0002.html .

But Open Governance is IMO serving the purpose of steering the development of 
the Qt code quite well. I think we can do better in also discussing designs etc 
on the mailing list, but well...

It seems to be a fatal flaw that the licensing, and the changes to, are not 
part of the open governance. It looks like there is only the ability to change 
and vote on code... What if that code commit is a license file ;-) ?
   

Can we conclude that contributions from outside the company are going to be 
nearly
non-existent?

I'd be more likely to contribute code if I was able to contribute it as LGPL it 
was available to users as LGPL.
  

I hope not  You can check out some statistics about code contributions at 
qt-project.org . There's also Thiago's generated statistics : 
https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/

Measuring the reaction to decisions like this change of license decision in 
terms of lines of code is surely a lagging indicator. And people may not be 
aware until they try to use the online installer to update, which they probably 
aren't. Or visit the blogs. I've been going over the history, the commercial 
release of 5.15 was announced in advance but was worded in a way as to not 
mention that there wouldn't also be an open source release.  ( 
https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-offering-changes-2020 )

"LTS and offline installer to become commercial-only
Starting with Qt 5.15, long term support (LTS) will only be available to commercial 
customers. This means open-source users will receive patch-level releases of 5.15 
until the next minor release will become available. This means that we will handle 
Qt 5.15 in the same way as e.g. 5.13 or 5.14 for open source users"

It is my understanding after reading that, that open source users would still 
get patch-level releases (5.15.x) through 

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development]

On 21/05/2021 16:26, Aleix Pol wrote:

I'd say embracing matrix can only be a positive iteration for the Qt
project. I've personally been in #qt-labs for about a year through our
matrix servers and it has served its purpose.

You are welcome to join KDE's matrix server and give it a go. If Qt
decides to make this the default way to proceed, our sysadmins can
help make sure the adequate bridges are in place for a painless
transition.
https://community.kde.org/Matrix


Timeout :) of course (...I hope...) anyone is free to use KDE's matrix 
and create Qt-specific channels in there.


But:

1) that doesn't mean that KDE is *endorsing* the #qt- channels on its 
Matrix instance (for that, I'd expect an official KDE decision, 
nominating someone from Qt to take care after those channels, etc.etc.?)


2) That doesn't mean that the Qt Project is *endorsing* its presence on 
such channels (for that, we need a Qt Project decision, then a KDE 
decision, etc.etc.?)


3) That also doesn't mean that KDE's Matrix will be bridged to 
Libera.Chat's Qt channels instead of/as well as Freenode's (was such a 
decision already taken, or does it depend on the decision from this thread?)



Thanks,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development]

On 21/05/2021 14:40, Cristián Maureira-Fredes wrote:

@Giuseppe regarding the consensus, should we do a thread for voting
the movement to libera only? or you think we could agree differently
of doing the move.


Yes, I'm afraid that I screwed this one up, apologies :(

I'll guess I'll start a new thread, *only* for voting.

Thank you,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community

[Jason H]

> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 at 8:57 AM
> From: "Kai Köhne" 
> To: "Benjamin TERRIER" , "development@qt-project.org" 
> 
> Subject: Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community
>
> > From: Development  On Behalf Of 
> > Benjamin TERRIER
> > Subject: Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community
> > 
> > On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 17:18, Jason H  wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway, these issues aren't insurmountable, apparently they can be changed 
> >> with the stroke of a pen. (Where is Qt's Open Governance? - still think I 
> >> misunderstood what that was about)
> >
> > Since TQC alone can decide that the Qt Project won't release Qt 5.15.3+  
> > without consulting the mailing list and going through the lazy consensus 
> > decision process, I think it's safe to say that Open Governance is dead.
> 
> I don't claim that the LTS decision was fully in line with the Open 
> Governance process as stated in 
> https://quips-qt-io.herokuapp.com/quip-0002.html .
>
> But Open Governance is IMO serving the purpose of steering the development of 
> the Qt code quite well. I think we can do better in also discussing designs 
> etc on the mailing list, but well...

It seems to be a fatal flaw that the licensing, and the changes to, are not 
part of the open governance. It looks like there is only the ability to change 
and vote on code... What if that code commit is a license file ;-) ?
  
> > Can we conclude that contributions from outside the company are going to be 
> > nearly
> > non-existent?

I'd be more likely to contribute code if I was able to contribute it as LGPL it 
was available to users as LGPL.
 
> I hope not  You can check out some statistics about code contributions at 
> qt-project.org . There's also Thiago's generated statistics : 
> https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/ 

Measuring the reaction to decisions like this change of license decision in 
terms of lines of code is surely a lagging indicator. And people may not be 
aware until they try to use the online installer to update, which they probably 
aren't. Or visit the blogs. I've been going over the history, the commercial 
release of 5.15 was announced in advance but was worded in a way as to not 
mention that there wouldn't also be an open source release.  ( 
https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-offering-changes-2020 )

"LTS and offline installer to become commercial-only
Starting with Qt 5.15, long term support (LTS) will only be available to 
commercial customers. This means open-source users will receive patch-level 
releases of 5.15 until the next minor release will become available. This means 
that we will handle Qt 5.15 in the same way as e.g. 5.13 or 5.14 for open 
source users"

It is my understanding after reading that, that open source users would still 
get patch-level releases (5.15.x) through the online installer. What actually 
happed though is as soon as Qt6.0.1 was released, the access to 5.15 patch 
releases were over. Access to the patch release vs support are different things 
though. As I read it, the /support of 5.15/ would end for open source users, 
who would only be supported on Qt6.0.1 at that time.  However this is not what 
happened, as access to 5.15 patches were cut off. This is a broken idea because 
not all the modules included at 5.15 were supported by 6.0. 6.0 is actually 
incomplete. 6.1 is also incomplete. This is hostile and unfair to open source 
user to deny them patches that already exist because of separate 
engineering/release decisions (which I also take issue with) to release an 
incomplete 6.0.  What needs to happen is Qt 5.15 needs to go back to open 
source patch releases until 6.x is at feature parity with 5.15. 

It's the right thing to do. 






___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Jason H]

> >> I would like to get back to doing more of our development discussions out 
> >> in the open
> >> (like it should be), but right now IRC is not something I want to go back 
> >> to for
> >> that.
> >
> > I also think that having development related discussions in internal Teams 
> > channels
> > is counterproductive not only for the parts of the community that cannot 
> > participate.
>
> I claim that having relevant development discussions in any chat is
> wrong. If these discussions are significantly more than a quick
> brainstorming, they belong onto the mailing list or into Gerrit,
> depending on their maturity. These services also meet the demands of
> getting history and looking at an archive.

I appreciate that the IRC meetings about releases are published.


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Avoiding ads and/or Google for doc searches (was: Changes to Freenode's IRC)

[Jason H]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 01:40, Kai Köhne 
mailto:kai.koe...@qt.io]> wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Development 
> > mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org]>
> >  On Behalf Of Jason H
> > Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2021 17:26
> > To: giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com[mailto:giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com]
> > Cc: development@qt-project.org[mailto:development@qt-project.org]
> > Subject: Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
> >
> > * Before you laugh, and say that is crazy, consider that the online Qt Docs 
> > search results now have ads: 
> > https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/search-results.html?q=camera[https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/search-results.html?q=camera]
> >  shows 4 ads for me.  And I don't know of any other toolkit who serves 
> > their documentation with ads. Take for example mozdev:
> > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/search?q=camera[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/search?q=camera]
> >  shows 0 ads. React, 0 ads. I figure it's only a matter of time until the 
> > actual documentation pages have ads too. (There may be good reasons for 
> > ads, but it's still not a good look.)
>
> It's true that the embedded search on doc.qt.io[http://doc.qt.io] sometimes 
> shows ads. But it's not the result of evil TQtC making heaps of money with 
> ads. It's just a side-effect of using google for embedded search, and has 
> been like that since years (if not decades)  ... We have actually recently 
> started to look into it (again), see 
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTWEBSITE-723[https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTWEBSITE-723]
>  if you want to get updates.

The browser extension is cool, thank you.

And yes, I broke my own rule to not attribute to malice/greed what can be 
explained by stupidity/laziness. I hadn't planned to mention it but given the 
nature of the Freenode split over user data privacy, I figured that the eyesore 
concern was secondary to the ad tracking/privacy concerns, and that may be of 
interest to those interested in switching from Freenode.


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Aleix Pol]

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:46 PM Carl Schwan  wrote:
>
> Le jeudi, mai 20, 2021 2:18 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development 
>  a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 20/05/2021 13:47, Alejandro Exojo wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 19, 2021, at 8:16 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
> > >
> > > > -   there's no registration required;
> > > > -   the $newthing has proven stability, staff, resources, etc., and 
> > > > won't
> > > > disappear in a few months/years;
> > > >
> > > > -   ...
> > > >
> > > > then anything is fine.
> > > > All other things being equal, the simplest measure would be to simply
> > > > move over to Libera. (...)
> > >
> > > Can Libera already be considered so quickly? A fork of a software is not 
> > > so easy
> > > as the "fork" of a service, isn't it? We don't know if they will 
> > > disappear in a
> > > month, or if Freenode will be fixed by then. Or if another "fork" appears.
> >
> > Sure, that's a fair question.
> >
> > Personally,
> >
> > 1.  I trust the staffing (coming from Freenode);
> > 2.  I trust the organization being entirely under EU law (it's in
> > Sweden), with a strong privacy policy;
> >
> > 3.  I trust it not disappearing tomorrow; most of the sponsored servers
> > are switching from Freenode to Libera, and many big projects are moving
> > there (e.g. Ubuntu just voted in favor. Of course none will move
> > overnight, just like Qt isn't moving overnight; decisions +
> > practicalities will take some time).
> >
> >
> > > Also, I don't understand how not having to register can be a requirement 
> > > at all,
> > > given that one needs to register, sometimes multiple times, to use some 
> > > of the
> > > other official channels. E.g. to participate in the mailing list I of 
> > > course
> > > need to subscribe to it, and to get an email account at all I would 
> > > either need
> > > to register with some provider or use a work email address (or self-host 
> > > or...).
> >
> > Or self-host, indeed. But nothing apart from your email is needed, and
> > that email is NEVER used for any commercial or marketing or research
> > purpose. Which is the same requirement for the mailing lists. It might
> > not be the case for some 3rd party services.
> >
> > > If at all, not requiring registration makes me more concerned about spam,
> > > trolling, harassment, etc.
> >
> > Which you can easily ignore (see user mode +g, +R). None of this has
> > been a major problem on Freenode so far.
> >
> > > I have my own biases after going through many pains to have a modern-ish 
> > > IRC
> > > experience (self hosting Quassel, using IRC bouncers, etc.). I hope that 
> > > the
> > > current active community of people on IRC doesn't get alienated if 
> > > something
> > > else is chosen, but I also hope that something with proper features is 
> > > chosen so
> > > I can be back online on those communities, because my paste experience 
> > > with IRC
> > > makes me not want to go there again unless really needed.
> > > FWIW, I'm now on other IM platforms, and all of Matrix, Telegram, 
> > > Mattermost and
> > > even Discord seem to have acceptable IRC integration, and some open source
> > > projects treat both sides of the integration as official channels. People 
> > > seem
> > > to be aware of it, and the friction between the two feature sets and 
> > > "idioms" of
> > > the platform are more or less respected. So a middle ground is possible 
> > > as well.
> >
> > Sure, but this doesn't bring an answer to the original question:
> >
> > -   Is the Qt community OK at staying on Freenode? (Currently it has an
> > official presence! Although noone seems to know better, esp. who is
> > the primary contact for this presence. Looking at the channels
> > registrations, the founders are Thiago, ossi, tronical, JP-Nurmi, but
> > that doesn't necessarily match who is the point of contact.)
> >
> > -   If no: does it wish to move to another IRC network -- to where?
> > -   If no: does it want to drop its official IRC presence? Implication:
> > the #qt* channels namespace will be released, and so up for grabs by the
> > first person passing by and registering channels in there.
> >
> > Lacking some formal voting infrastructure, how do we take this vote?
> > I'd say, KISS: please reply to this email and express your preference.
>
> I believe the best course of action would be to wait a bit until KDE moves
> its freenode presence to libera (should happen soon). And then Qt can move
> its freenode channels to libera and add Matrix bridging to the new channels
> with the KDE-Matrix instance.
>
> People who prefer IRC will still be able to use IRC, people who would like
> to use a more modern chat protocol can use Matrix and both will be able to
> communicate together using the Matrix bridge.
>
> Currently, there are already some unofficial matrix channels bridged to the Qt
> IRC channels (e.g. #_freenode_#qt-labs:kde.org) but making them 

Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community

[Joerg Bornemann]

On 5/21/21 2:49 PM, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:


Please don't cut half of what I said to make me say something I did not say.


I did not do that at all. I merely quoted what I wanted to answer.

You said  that during Trolltech times that Qt Windows was commercial 
only and the open source part was under GPL (not LGPL).


Sorry for not having been clearer.
I wrote that the open source part of the *dual* *license* was GPL.
The Windows port, however, was only commercially licensed, not dually.

Due to a crystal ball shortage, I cannot respond to the rest.


Cheers,

Joerg
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community

[Kai Köhne]

> From: Development  On Behalf Of Benjamin 
> TERRIER
> Subject: Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community
> 
> On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 17:18, Jason H  wrote:
>
>> Anyway, these issues aren't insurmountable, apparently they can be changed 
>> with the stroke of a pen. (Where is Qt's Open Governance? - still think I 
>> misunderstood what that was about)
>
> Since TQC alone can decide that the Qt Project won't release Qt 5.15.3+  
> without consulting the mailing list and going through the lazy consensus 
> decision process, I think it's safe to say that Open Governance is dead.

I don't claim that the LTS decision was fully in line with the Open Governance 
process as stated in https://quips-qt-io.herokuapp.com/quip-0002.html .

But Open Governance is IMO serving the purpose of steering the development of 
the Qt code quite well. I think we can do better in also discussing designs etc 
on the mailing list, but well...
 
> Can we conclude that contributions from outside the company are going to be 
> nearly
> non-existent?

I hope not  You can check out some statistics about code contributions at 
qt-project.org . There's also Thiago's generated statistics : 
https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/ .

Kai

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community

[Benjamin TERRIER]

On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 14:32, Joerg Bornemann  wrote:

> On 5/21/21 12:41 PM, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
>
> > And now:
> > - all new modules and supported platforms are Commercial/GPLv3 only.
>
> Which is very different from commercial-only.
>

Please don't cut half of what I said to make me say something I did not say.
You said  that during Trolltech times that Qt Windows was commercial only
and the open source part was under GPL (not LGPL).

I said, without being truncated:

> And now:
> - all new modules and supported platforms are Commercial/GPLv3 only.
> - Qt 5.15.3+ is commercial only


So we have some parts that are commercial only, and some parts that are
open sourced only under GPL (not LGPL).
Given that this no LGPL policy is applied to all new modules (except Qt 3D
which was made by KDAB) and all new platforms,
and that all LTS are commercial only,
the part of Qt that is commercial-only or GPL-only is only going to grow.
Meaning that Qt as a whole in the future might look a lot more like the Qt
from Trolltech than the Qt from Nokia.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Cristián Maureira-Fredes]

On 5/20/21 8:46 PM, Carl Schwan wrote:

Le jeudi, mai 20, 2021 2:18 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development 
 a écrit :


[snip]
 Lacking some formal voting infrastructure, how do we take this vote?
 I'd say, KISS: please reply to this email and express your preference.


I believe the best course of action would be to wait a bit until KDE moves
its freenode presence to libera (should happen soon). And then Qt can move
its freenode channels to libera and add Matrix bridging to the new channels
with the KDE-Matrix instance.

People who prefer IRC will still be able to use IRC, people who would like
to use a more modern chat protocol can use Matrix and both will be able to
communicate together using the Matrix bridge.

Currently, there are already some unofficial matrix channels bridged to the Qt
IRC channels (e.g. #_freenode_#qt-labs:kde.org) but making them official,
grouping them into a Matrix Space[1] and encouraging people to join them could
help to make Qt a friendlier project to join.

Cheers,
Carl

[1]: https://matrix.org/blog/2021/05/17/the-matrix-space-beta



Hello,

I completely agree with this argument,
moving Libera seems to be
the first solution to the initial problem,
then we could connect those channels with Matrix
counterparts on the KDE infra.

Why Matrix?
KDE is already using it, and I trust
they also had long lasting discussions to "what do we use next".
If someone don't like it then the person can stay on the IRC channel.

After this, time will tell, if we notice an increase of users
on the matrix, or IRC side, and we can have another discussion.
but at least I feel it's a good plan to follow.

Is there any argument against this plan?
Bridges will be harmless enough to at least give us the option
to try something different, without losing discussions from IRC.

@Giuseppe regarding the consensus, should we do a thread for voting
the movement to libera only? or you think we could agree differently
of doing the move.


--
Story time: The PySide situation

As you can see here: https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_for_Python#Community
the project has many platforms, and some of them are connected,
giving me at least the feeling everyone is happy in their system.

IRC has some activity, but it's connected with a bridge
to Matrix (the default server), and also to Gitter
(if you don't know what's about, it's mainly a web-based chat
system related to github projects, it has been connected to
the old github mirror of the pyside-setup repo).

With the configuration:
Gitter <-> IRC <-> Matrix
most people are happy enough.

We complementary had open a Telegram channel,
that became the most active platform (citation needed, it's my impression.).

We opened a PySide channel on Keybase,
but after all the crypto-stuff, it died out.

--


--
Dr. Cristián Maureira-Fredes
R Manager

The Qt Company GmbH
Erich-Thilo-Str. 10
D-12489 Berlin

Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi,
Juha Varelius, Jouni Lintunen
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin,
Registergericht: Amtsgericht
Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community

[Joerg Bornemann]

On 5/21/21 12:41 PM, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:


And now:
- all new modules and supported platforms are Commercial/GPLv3 only.


Which is very different from commercial-only.

Can we conclude that contributions from outside the company are going to 
be nearly non-existent?


Based on the facts? No.


Cheers,

Joerg
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

[Development] Avoiding ads and/or Google for doc searches (was: Changes to Freenode's IRC)

[Sze Howe Koh]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 01:40, Kai Köhne  wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Development  On Behalf Of
Jason H
> > Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2021 17:26
> > To: giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com
> > Cc: development@qt-project.org
> > Subject: Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC
> >
> > * Before you laugh, and say that is crazy, consider that the online Qt
Docs search results now have ads:
https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/search-results.html?q=camera shows 4 ads for me.
And I don't know of any other toolkit who serves their documentation with
ads. Take for example mozdev:
> > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/search?q=camera shows 0 ads. React,
0 ads. I figure it's only a matter of time until the actual documentation
pages have ads too. (There may be good reasons for ads, but it's still not
a good look.)
>
> It's true that the embedded search on doc.qt.io sometimes shows ads. But
it's not the result of evil TQtC making heaps of money with ads. It's just
a side-effect of using google for embedded search, and has been like that
since years (if not decades)  ... We have actually recently started to look
into it (again), see https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTWEBSITE-723 if you
want to get updates.

For those who want to avoid ads and/or the Google search engine, consider
the Qt Doc Search browser extension.

Features:
* Initiate searches from any browser tab; no need to navigate to doc.qt.io
first
* Search a specific version of Qt or a specific tool (Qt Creator, Qt Design
Studio, GammaRay, etc.)
* Choose your search engine (default: DuckDuckGo)

User links:
* (Chrome/Edge)
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/qt-doc-search/gfigdpnkjnilcielpnmfmdnnbloabjoh
* (Firefox)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/qt-documentation-search/

Other links:
* (Original forum post)
https://forum.qt.io/topic/35616/web-browser-extension-for-improved-doc-searches
* (Source code, public domain) https://github.com/JKSH/qt-doc-search/


Regards,
Sze-Howe
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community

[Benjamin TERRIER]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 17:18, Jason H  wrote:

>
> Anyway, these issues aren't insurmountable, apparently they can be changed
> with the stroke of a pen. (Where is Qt's Open Governance? - still think I
> misunderstood what that was about)


Since TQC alone can decide that the Qt Project won't release Qt 5.15.3+
without consulting the mailing list and going through the lazy consensus
decision process, I think it's safe to say that Open Governance is dead.


> **What would the next milestone be? Not Qt6. It's just a version. I'd like
> to see Qt take on the web, the pieces are there, with WebAssembly and
> QHttpServer. The web meanwhile has gotten more Qt-like with webpack and
> other compilation-step tools. I think this would really embiggen the Qt
> community, but the release practices would have to be brought inline with
> like, say Node's:
> https://nodesource.com/blog/understanding-how-node-js-release-lines-work/
> which means no commercial-only LTS releases, or releasing an incomplete
> major version.
>

QHttpServer and WebAssembly are GPLv3 only (like all new modules and
platform support).
So they will only get traction from commercial users or GPLv3 projects.
TQC is cutting itself from all LGPL users who will simply use one of the
many other http servers available under a more permissive license, or even
just drop Qt and switch to standard web techs which are more mature that Qt
WASM.



On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 10:18, Joerg Bornemann  wrote:

>
> 1. In the glorious days of Trolltech and Qt 3.3.3, the Windows port, for
> example, of Qt was commercial-only. The open-source part of the dual
> license was GPL. Contributions from outside the company were nearby
> non-existent.
>

And now:
- all new modules and supported platforms are Commercial/GPLv3 only.
- Qt 5.15.3+ is commercial only

It looks a lot like "the glorious days of Trolltech and Qt 3.3.3"
Can we conclude that contributions from outside the company are going to
be nearly
non-existent?
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Robert Löhning]

Am 20.05.21 um 20:57 schrieb André Pönitz:

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:59:31AM +, Andy Nichols wrote:

The chat channels are fragmented these days. There’s the Qt discord channels,
QtMob on Slack, Qt and Advanced C++ on Telegram.



Are any of these channels endorsed by the Qt project?  The IRC channels are, 
that's
why I'm raising the question here.


They probably should be.  We list those in our "Online Communities" wiki.  I'm 
active
on the Qt Discord and its quite lively and interesting.


Not to mention freenode ones, that no one uses anymore,

This is a falsehood (they're active both in terms of traffic, and importance of 
the
discussions happening there -- like the release meetings).


IRC has been relatively "dead" for a while now compared to how it used to be.  
Even
now that we are doing everything remotely IRC is pretty useless compared to 
other
chat services for collaboration because everything is so manual (sharing code,
sharing images, sharing video, having voice calls, sharing a screen).


And IRC can't make coffee and doesn't fix your bike either.

If you have some tool that happens to have some chat functionality does not 
make other
functionality of that tool a requirement when looking for a chat service.


To get any history you have to run another service, or look at an archive 
(which I
can't even seem to find now for the Qt freenode channels).


Works as designed. Freenode never endorsed public logging.

Chat is for ephemeral contents, like normal speech.

You don't run around with a running voice recorder all day, or require public 
logging
of everything you and the people around you ever said in real life, do you?


I expect to be able to log Into chat on any of my machines (and my phone or 
table)
and see push notifications when I've been mentioned.


_I_ expect online chat to work similarly to offline chat: when I am in some 
room, I can
hear stuff, when I am not in some room, I don't hear anything, and most of the 
things
I hear will be forgotten a few days later. If I hear something important, I 
might
take a note, in an explicit, extra step. Under no circumstances I will be able 
to
"remember" something someone said in a room I wasn't in a year ago, my only 
chance
is to talk to someone who was. And this is a _good_ thing.


All of these things we have now with Slack, Discord, Teams, etc.  Those services
have set a new standard of what we expect for a chat service.  Dealing with IRC 
has
the same level of experience now that it did when we dialed in with modems.


Please don't use "we" unless you are sure you voice a consensus opinion.

I can't say anything about Slack or Discord, as I don't use them, but I do have 
an
opinion about Teams which I am requested to use at work.

For me, Teams has the worst chat-like functionality I've ever used, and that 
includes
'talk' or even telnetting into someone's machine and using 'write' there (so 
yes,
it's been a ride...):

There is no sensible way in Teams to keep up with what people said in various
discussion in various channels without excessive (and time consuming) mousing 
around.
Even individual messages are collapsed if they are "long". There's no way to 
arrange
things to be read linearly without interruption. And even if you expand stuff it
will be collapsed next time you come back. I am quicker browsing "useless" lines
for interesting information than to click around and then to browse that anyway.
And thanks to having no public protocol I don't even have a theoretical chance 
to
get a client that does what I want. So: Thanks, but no, thanks.

And that is just the usability aspect. The deep disrespect of anything in the 
vicinity
of privacy is another sore spot. Ever tried to control your "own" data there? 
Like,
cleaning up your "own" call history?


As far as what chat service we *should* use that is harder to say (having 
previously
did battle inside of tQtc over this very topic for our internal chat and getting
nowhere).


[...]


I expect that something like Matrix would be the only thing the more outspoken
members of our community could handle, and I think that would probably Be a
reasonable compromise as it does seem to be quite good.  I personally like 
Discord
but I can understand why people would have hesitations about that.  I did 
notice that
the Godot (open source Game engine) community have recently officially moved 
there
development chat to Discord from Freenode (IRC) and The server is very active 
and
vibrant.

I would like to get back to doing more of our development discussions out in 
the open
(like it should be), but right now IRC is not something I want to go back to for
that.


I also think that having development related discussions in internal Teams 
channels
is counterproductive not only for the parts of the community that cannot 
participate.


I claim that having relevant development discussions in any chat is 
wrong. If these discussions are significantly more than a quick 
brainstorming, 

Re: [Development] Renamed: Running a service for Qt community

[Joerg Bornemann]

On 5/20/21 5:16 PM, Jason H wrote:


*if you wonder why I keep calling them Digia and not the Qt Company, it is 
because the actions of late don't really feel like Qt of old (Nokia, TrollTech) 
would have treated opens source users that way. Looking at the management: 
https://investors.qt.io/governance/management/ only 2 came from Nokia, the rest 
are from Digia or have been hired since. To me, this explains the change of 
behavior by Qt's controlling entity.


In addition to Robert's correction, I want to mention two things.

1. In the glorious days of Trolltech and Qt 3.3.3, the Windows port, for 
example, of Qt was commercial-only. The open-source part of the dual 
license was GPL. Contributions from outside the company were nearby 
non-existent.


2. With snide remarks it's the same with jokes: if you gotta explain 
them, it's usually a sign they lack cunning.




Cheers,

Joerg
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Eike Ziller]

> On May 20, 2021, at 20:57, André Pönitz  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:59:31AM +, Andy Nichols wrote:
 The chat channels are fragmented these days. There’s the Qt discord 
 channels,
 QtMob on Slack, Qt and Advanced C++ on Telegram. 
>> 
>>> Are any of these channels endorsed by the Qt project?  The IRC channels 
>>> are, that's
>>> why I'm raising the question here.
>> 
>> They probably should be.  We list those in our "Online Communities" wiki.  
>> I'm active
>> on the Qt Discord and its quite lively and interesting.
>> 
 Not to mention freenode ones, that no one uses anymore,
>>> This is a falsehood (they're active both in terms of traffic, and 
>>> importance of the
>>> discussions happening there -- like the release meetings).
>> 
>> IRC has been relatively "dead" for a while now compared to how it used to 
>> be.  Even
>> now that we are doing everything remotely IRC is pretty useless compared to 
>> other
>> chat services for collaboration because everything is so manual (sharing 
>> code,
>> sharing images, sharing video, having voice calls, sharing a screen). 
> 
> And IRC can't make coffee and doesn't fix your bike either.
> 
> If you have some tool that happens to have some chat functionality does not 
> make other
> functionality of that tool a requirement when looking for a chat service.
> 
>> To get any history you have to run another service, or look at an archive 
>> (which I
>> can't even seem to find now for the Qt freenode channels). 
> 
> Works as designed. Freenode never endorsed public logging.
> 
> Chat is for ephemeral contents, like normal speech.
> 
> You don't run around with a running voice recorder all day, or require public 
> logging
> of everything you and the people around you ever said in real life, do you?
> 
>> I expect to be able to log Into chat on any of my machines (and my phone or 
>> table)
>> and see push notifications when I've been mentioned.
> 
> _I_ expect online chat to work similarly to offline chat: when I am in some 
> room, I can
> hear stuff, when I am not in some room, I don't hear anything, and most of 
> the things
> I hear will be forgotten a few days later. If I hear something important, I 
> might
> take a note, in an explicit, extra step. Under no circumstances I will be 
> able to
> "remember" something someone said in a room I wasn't in a year ago, my only 
> chance
> is to talk to someone who was. And this is a _good_ thing.

But for IRC this is an illusion.
Even if you don’t run around with a voice recorder, other people are sitting in 
these rooms with voice recorders and record everything you say.
Even if you forgot what you said, nothing is ever forgotten.

And even though I see (I use Quassel) what the guy asked at 22:00 CET and never 
got an answer to, I’ll never be able to answer him. One lost opportunity to 
help someone.
So in the end one gets all the disadvantages (nothing is ever forgotten), 
without the advantages (async communication).

++ Eike

> 
>> All of these things we have now with Slack, Discord, Teams, etc.  Those 
>> services
>> have set a new standard of what we expect for a chat service.  Dealing with 
>> IRC has
>> the same level of experience now that it did when we dialed in with modems.  
> 
> Please don't use "we" unless you are sure you voice a consensus opinion.
> 
> I can't say anything about Slack or Discord, as I don't use them, but I do 
> have an
> opinion about Teams which I am requested to use at work.
> 
> For me, Teams has the worst chat-like functionality I've ever used, and that 
> includes
> 'talk' or even telnetting into someone's machine and using 'write' there (so 
> yes,
> it's been a ride...):
> 
> There is no sensible way in Teams to keep up with what people said in various
> discussion in various channels without excessive (and time consuming) mousing 
> around.
> Even individual messages are collapsed if they are "long". There's no way to 
> arrange
> things to be read linearly without interruption. And even if you expand stuff 
> it
> will be collapsed next time you come back. I am quicker browsing "useless" 
> lines
> for interesting information than to click around and then to browse that 
> anyway.
> And thanks to having no public protocol I don't even have a theoretical 
> chance to
> get a client that does what I want. So: Thanks, but no, thanks.
> 
> And that is just the usability aspect. The deep disrespect of anything in the 
> vicinity
> of privacy is another sore spot. Ever tried to control your "own" data there? 
> Like,
> cleaning up your "own" call history?
> 
>> As far as what chat service we *should* use that is harder to say (having 
>> previously
>> did battle inside of tQtc over this very topic for our internal chat and 
>> getting
>> nowhere).
> 
> [...]
> 
>> I expect that something like Matrix would be the only thing the more 
>> outspoken
>> members of our community could handle, and I think that would probably Be a
>> reasonable 

Re: [Development] Changes to Freenode's IRC

[Tobias Hunger]

On Thu, May 20, 2021, 21:03 André Pönitz  wrote:

> Works as designed. Freenode never endorsed public logging.
>
> Chat is for ephemeral contents, like normal speech.
>

I always chat as it it was logged, even in IRC: It is easy to log, so
people are logging. There may not be "official" logs, but there definitely
are logs.

Quassel e.g. has logging built in, to name just one IRC tool popular I  the
Qt crowd.

> If we choose to just move to another IRC service, then it's likely that
> I'll just
> > continue to ignore it as irrelevant like I do now with Freenode.
>
> Looks like the both of us won't have much of a chance to chat casually
> online.
>

That is true: Choosing a chat tool also implicitly select a target audience.

What is the target audience the Qt community wants to engage with?

Best Regards,
Tobias

>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development