Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Mirko Boehm - KDE]

Hi Thomas,

thanks for this issue forward with a rather constructive approach!

> On 16. Aug 2017, at 03:20, Thomas Pfeiffer  wrote:
> 
> I have now cleaned up  https://notes.kde.org/p/KDE_IM_requirements 
>  by removing
> duplicates, removing all discussion / comments (so only plain requirements are
> left) and rewording most requirements to that they have a somewhat common
> wording.
> 
> The next step will be to turn this into a Kano survey which will be used to
> prioritize them (will do that tomorrow).


I think this is exactly what is needed. The requirements collected right now 
are a superset of anything anyone could ever wish for. I am really interested 
in seeing them prioritised and the bottom 20% of them scrapped :-)

Best,

Mirko.
--
Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V.
FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer
Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

Hey everyone,
just a quick progress update:

I have now cleaned up  https://notes.kde.org/p/KDE_IM_requirements by removing 
duplicates, removing all discussion / comments (so only plain requirements are 
left) and rewording most requirements to that they have a somewhat common 
wording.

The next step will be to turn this into a Kano survey which will be used to 
prioritize them (will do that tomorrow).

Cheers,
Thomas

Re: [kde-community] Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

> On 15 Aug 2017, at 12:09, Jonathan Riddell  wrote:
> 
> On 15 August 2017 at 10:44, Thomas Pfeiffer  wrote:
>> The VDG has contributed to the Etherpad, so their requirements are covered 
>> in there.
> 
> How to evaluate if Matrix/Riot covers them?  Stuff like "Have a UI
> that someone who is < 20 years old and cares about the looks of a UI
> would use" is hard to evaluate and much of the rest is also about feel
> which is hard to quantify.

That one was my initial copy & paste from the mailing list thread. I admit it’s 
not very good and I’ll have to make it more objective. Other VDG members were 
better at that because they didn’t come from the emotion-laden email thread.

In general the Etherpad has to be cleaned up, the more discussion-y parts have 
to be removed.

I’ll go over it tonight and make sure it’s in a usable shape, but any help with 
that is welcome, so everybody please feel free to edit anything that isn’t an 
objective requirement to turn it into one, and just delete the comments.

Re: [kde-community] Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Jonathan Riddell]

On 15 August 2017 at 10:44, Thomas Pfeiffer  wrote:
> The VDG has contributed to the Etherpad, so their requirements are covered in 
> there.

How to evaluate if Matrix/Riot covers them?  Stuff like "Have a UI
that someone who is < 20 years old and cares about the looks of a UI
would use" is hard to evaluate and much of the rest is also about feel
which is hard to quantify.

Jonathan

Re: [kde-community] Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

> On 15 Aug 2017, at 11:42, Jonathan Riddell  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 09:49:11PM +0900, Eike Hein wrote:
>> 
>> I've given some more thought to Matrix as a contender and I'm
>> increasingly liking this option among the available contenders.
> 
> We have the possibility of moving to Matrix and allowing individual
> IRC channels to move to real Matrix channels in their own time.
> 
> But alas we've still not heard from the groups who have chosen not to
> use IRC to see if it would interest them. VDG, Promo, anyone?
> 

The VDG has contributed to the Etherpad, so their requirements are covered in 
there.

Re: [kde-community] Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 09:49:11PM +0900, Eike Hein wrote:
> 
> I've given some more thought to Matrix as a contender and I'm
> increasingly liking this option among the available contenders.

We have the possibility of moving to Matrix and allowing individual
IRC channels to move to real Matrix channels in their own time.

But alas we've still not heard from the groups who have chosen not to
use IRC to see if it would interest them. VDG, Promo, anyone?

Jonathan

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Eike Hein]

On 08/12/2017 04:22 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Boudhayan Gupta wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Best idea yet!

IRCv3 is working on things like that, including features like
chat history, replies, even edits. There's a lot of spec work
there that's done or in flight.

Frankly, most chat protocols / systems are currently conver-
ging on the same feature set right now, arguably led by Slack
and Discord (who copy each other's features in turns).

The problem the IRC world has (aside from legacy cruft) is
that it's less vertically integrated than others and has less
momentum behind it right now. For example, if the Matrix
community hammers out a new spec feature, it tends to be
implemented in Synapse (reference server) and Riot (glitzy
web client) quickly, which are codebases that are really
deployed and really in use.

In IRC on the other hand, Konversation does support some IRCv3
things, but only to the extent that freenode and znc actually
support them, which is a very small extent compared to all the
IRCv3 things you need to clone Discord.

>From the Konversation side: We've long had ambitions to make
a Qt Quick-based successor UI to the current QWidget-based
version, and did some preliminary engineering work on that
last year (e.g. writing a prototype of a high-performance
chat text display system for Qt Quick, with lots of nifty
abilities like managing text elements as scene graph nodes
and using texture atlases smartly). We'll eventually resume
work on that.

I think there's still a calling for a modern chat client
built on the Qt/KDE stack - we've got a lot of goodies in
Frameworks that align with its needs very well, and the
desktop apps for things like Slack or Discord are just
websites wrapped in Electron and giant resource hogs with
poor platform integration. It's not-so-hard to do better,
and the 10+ years of experience in making a chat app for
people also don't hurt.

Now whether that Konvi-NG is an IRC client or a Matrix
client I personally actually don't care so much, because
they're both free and have values that I feel are
compatible with me and KDE.


Cheers,
Eike

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Boudhayan Gupta wrote:

> 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?

Best idea yet!

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Boudhayan Gupta]

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"  wrote:

> On August 11, 2017 4:22:04 AM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer <
> thomas.pfeif...@kde.org> 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 

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Elvis Angelaccio]

On venerdì 11 agosto 2017 16:25:40 CEST, Jonathan Riddell wrote:

On 11 August 2017 at 13:49, Eike Hein  wrote:

I've given some more thought to Matrix as a contender and I'm
increasingly liking this option among the available contenders.


Am I right in thinking that the bridging in Matrix/Riot isn't the same
as various IRC/Telegram channels have where messages are sent between
them? It seems to be a simple case of making the IRC channels
available through matrix/riot so you can see both native Matrix
channels and non-native ones.


Not really, a Matrix client can only speak the matrix protocol. So when you 
join an IRC channel from a matrix client, you are joining a normal Matrix 
"room" that happens to be bridged with IRC on the server side. For example, 
if you upload a picture in that channel a Matrix user will see the picture 
while an IRC user will see a normal IRC message with a link to that 
picture.




Jonathan

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Jonathan Riddell]

On 11 August 2017 at 13:49, Eike Hein  wrote:
> I've given some more thought to Matrix as a contender and I'm
> increasingly liking this option among the available contenders.

Am I right in thinking that the bridging in Matrix/Riot isn't the same
as various IRC/Telegram channels have where messages are sent between
them? It seems to be a simple case of making the IRC channels
available through matrix/riot so you can see both native Matrix
channels and non-native ones.

Jonathan

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Eike Hein]

I've given some more thought to Matrix as a contender and I'm
increasingly liking this option among the available contenders.

The available Matrix clients are currently not quite as polished
as their competition (specifically Slack/Discord), but Matrix
does have their features in its scope, including things like
replies and edits which Thomas and others consider important
(I also like them sometimes, though they're no dealbreakers
for me personally). The mobile Riot client already looks better
that Rocket.Chat's though, which is just a wrapped web app.

Moreover, as a client dev (Konvi maintainer) I could actually
see myself making or contributing to a Matrix client built on
our stack (which I think offers some great tooling for a modern
chat client, e.g. previews for media embeds are a snap for our
machinery). With Rocket.Chat I would have no interest in doing
so, because it's a one-off web app and doesn't actually have a
seperate spec for its protocol, nor stability guarantees for it,
nor a governance model ... it's just not something that tries
to build a durable technology/platform.

Some of the feature plans for Matrix also sound super great
for our plans. For example, keep in mind every Rocket.Chat
instance is an island, but Matrix is actually a fully-federated
network, so it's a wider world. One thing on the horizon for
organizing that world is groups:

"These will probably be the single biggest change to Matrix that we’ve
seen since E2E encryption landed: it changes the dynamic of the whole
network, given users can explicitly declare allegiance to different
groups, which in turn have their own home pages and directories etc.  It
lets users form communities, and declare their participation in those
communities (if desired), and also lets rooms be grouped together.  One
of our single biggest requests has been “subrooms” and we’re incredibly
excited to see how well Groups solve this."

Having a KDE group on Matrix and getting a channel directory
out of it seems like exactly what we need (and is a little
like our group and namespace on freenode).

I also personally heavily sympathize with their self-conception
as a project and community:

"There are very very few people actually working professionally on
trying to build general-purpose open communication networks and
protocols.  There’s us, some XMPP, IRCv3 and GNU Social/Mastodon folks,
GNU Ring, Tox, Briar, Secure Scuttlebutt, IPFS, Status.im, Ricochet… and
that’s literally all the major projects I can think of (sorry if I
missed you!).  There’s probably only 50 developers in total working in
this domain as their day job.

Meanwhile, there are literally hundreds of thousands of folks trudging
away building more and more near-indistinguishable proprietary closed
communication systems – trapping users inside ever more silos and
fragmenting the basic ability to communicate on the ‘net.  It’s like a
world where the open web was pushed into a tiny underground resistance,
and everyone else was trapped in the walled gardens of AOL and
Compuserve (or more contemporarily: Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp etc)."

I guess I like what these guys are doing.

Other points:
- Bridging: exists and works
- Sticker packs: Currently being worked on for Matrix and Riot


Cheers,
Eike

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Thursday 10 August 2017 21:34:19 Christian Loosli wrote:
> 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.

The requirements list can also be used to check whether the bridges support 
all the functionality that we expect.

Case in point:

During Akademy, the community was split between the Akademy Telegram group, 
and the Akademy IRC channel. There was a bridge between them. Messages typed 
in one sub-community were bridged to, and displayed in, the other sub-
community.

Watching from the IRC side of things, all the Telegram users were represented 
by one IRC user (eh .. TelegramBot?), with messages like

: [IsmaelOlea] Bus leaves in 5 minutes!

On the IRC side, how does one respond to Ismael? His nick doesn't autocomplete 
(in irssi, konversation or quassel) because he's not actually there as a user; 
only TelegramBot is. Clumsy notation such as @IsmaelOlea may work, once the 
message crosses the bridge to the other side.

So here the bridge works, but it doesn't really satisfy the requirement (which 
isn't on the list, because it's not primarily about bridging requirements, as 
far as I can see) that bridged users be not-very-distinguishable from native 
users.

Case in point:

Every sarcastic polar bear sticker from Telegram becomes a link on the IRC 
side; it's not immediately clear whether the link is something important like 
a screenshot of the bug under discussion, or an essential expression of the 
speakers emotional state, or just a sarcastic polar bear. Even Quassel's link 
preview doesn't help much, if it takes time and effort to get to that preview.

So if the IM-requirements list concludes that sarcastic polar bears are really 
important, then that can set goalposts: improving the bridge and the IRC 
clients so that some form of spb-stickering is immediately visible.



[ade]

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Adriaan de Groot]

Luigi says it well: there is a point to this exercise in figuring out what is 
desired / required of an IM system. That can be interesting in and of itself 
-- I've gone and interviewed my daughter on her use of different IM systems, 
and found a whole hierarchy of needs and fine distinctions in the under-16 
crowd.

On Friday 11 August 2017 08:12:32 Luigi Toscano wrote:
> Il 10 agosto 2017 22:34:19 EEST, Christian Loosli  ha 
scritto:
> >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
> 
> The topic is what it is because of how it started but the etherpad is still
> useful. Even if more bridges are available, maybe it is possible to choose
> one of them as primary or preferred, where invest in terms of client or
> support on the server side or whatever.

Well-said. It may be possible to figure out a common core of functionality that 
is desired; that same list might be held up as a checklist for bridges; might 
also be a list to look at and go "IM can do that?"

The etherpad seems to be unchanged in the last 12 hours at least, perhaps it 
is time to clean it up, categorize the requirements and post it (Thomas, you 
were instrumental in trying to make a constructive discussion out of this, can 
you take a look?)

[ade]

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Luigi Toscano]

While I generally agree with your feeling that the feeling for IRC was a bit 
negative, I disagree here:

Il 10 agosto 2017 22:34:19 EEST, Christian Loosli  ha scritto:

>
>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  

The topic is what it is because of how it started but the etherpad is still 
useful. Even if more bridges are available, maybe it is possible to choose one 
of them as primary or preferred, where invest in terms of client or support on 
the server side or whatever. 

Ciao

-- 
Luigi

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Luigi Toscano]

Il 10 agosto 2017 22:22:04 EEST, Thomas Pfeiffer  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

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Eike Hein]

On August 11, 2017 4:22:04 AM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer 
 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.

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Christian Loosli]

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 
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.

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.

See above. 


> 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 
etherpad. 

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 

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[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?
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, because he 
thinks bridges have a negative impact on the experience of both sides of them.

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.

Why do people feel something is threatened without people threatening it?

Puzzled,
Thomas

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Christian Loosli]

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*

Christian 

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[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.

They find rocket.chat to have some limitations including that the
clients aren't as bug free as they ought to be.

Jonathan


On 8 August 2017 at 16:52, Jonathan Riddell  wrote:
> Like all sensible open source communities we use IRC lots for real
> time communication essential to making low bandwidth decisions in a
> reasonable timeframe as well as socialising.
>
> 20 years ago IRC was cool but these days real-time communication in
> the non-geek world long since moved other places such as WhatsApp,
> Facebook Messenger which are infinately more user friendly than IRC.
> In the geek-world it has moved to Slack and Telegram. So KDE finds
> itself spread between three real time communication methods with IRC
> still the strongest but many new people reluctant to use it as scary
> and unfamiliar while Slack and Telegram smell of being proprietary and
> lacking some of the free-form nature of IRC.
>
> So my radical proposal for today is to consider moving all our
> real-time communications wholesale to Rocket.Chat. Like Slack it takes
> much of it's basic setup from IRC with #channels that anyone can set
> up. Unlike Slack it's all free software and we can run our own
> servers.  Like Telegram it works on phones fine. Unlike IRC it
> supports media files and friendly user names.
>
> It has a native desktop client and we have a KDE one in progress with Ruqola.
> https://rocket.chat/
>
> I setup up a temporary server, do come along and say hi to evaluate it.
> http://ec2-34-203-38-236.compute-1.amazonaws.com:3000/
>
> I'm aware this will probably end up as a case of XCKD standards
> https://xkcd.com/927/ but I thought it worth a shot.  We have
> difficulty attracting new contributors and our community is
> fragmenting because of the dominance of IRC so worth considering
> alternatives.
>
> Jonathan

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

> On 10 Aug 2017, at 15:27, Marco Martin  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Albert Astals Cid  wrote:
>> You can't expect me to read a 200 messages backlog in 20 channels just in 
>> case
>> something important was said while i was away.
>> 
>> Also one of the reasons of why i hate to use Telegram for anything that
>> "actually matters" is this "always on" feature.
> 
> that's sooo true for me as well :)
> and i guess it's the exact opposite of why so many people prefer
> telegram over irc, but on my end, i *love* that when i'm offline, i'm
> really offline
> 
I get that point. The thing is that people who have grown up with modern IM 
systems have a different mindset. They are used to not missing anything while 
away, they just expect things to be that way.

You always have the option to temporarily mute your IM app’s notifications, 
though, but you can’t set “office hours” and people don’t get a notification 
when they try to ping you while you have it muted.
We could add “Provide easy way to set availability times and communicate 
non-availability to others” to the requirements list, though. Slack has that, 
and it’s really useful especially when you use it for work.

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Marco Martin]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Albert Astals Cid  wrote:
> You can't expect me to read a 200 messages backlog in 20 channels just in case
> something important was said while i was away.
>
> Also one of the reasons of why i hate to use Telegram for anything that
> "actually matters" is this "always on" feature.

that's sooo true for me as well :)
and i guess it's the exact opposite of why so many people prefer
telegram over irc, but on my end, i *love* that when i'm offline, i'm
really offline

--
Marco Martin

Re: Please participate in the requirements Etherpad (Was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Thursday 10 August 2017 10:57:29 Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> This is a microcosm, a textbook example, a beautiful illustration of
> exactly  what the culture-worries in the IM thread are about

Perhaps to clarify: the above is a philosophical point (see what happens when 
you start messing around with communications channels), not related to the 
actual list being created.

The list being created so far is (as Thomas mentioned) at

https://notes.kde.org/p/KDE_IM_requirements

You will need a KDE identity account to access it. If I glance at the colors 
in that notepad (even though few have attached their name to a color), it 
looks like all the vocal people in this thread are also represented on the 
notepad.

There are interesting philosophical discussions to be had about the content of 
the list -- but not just yet, I don't think.

[ade]

Re: Please participate in the requirements Etherpad (Was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Thursday 10 August 2017 00:15:21 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> Just in case my other email linking to the Etherpad was overlooked by some
> of you because it was buried too deep in the thread:
> 
> Let's make this discussion productive by collecting the requirements KDE has
> for a chat / IM system to become our standard in this document:
> 
> https://notes.kde.org/p/KDE_IM_requirements
> 
> This is supposed to be the basis for our evaluation and ultimately decision,
> so if you don't contribute, you don't get to complain later ;)

The thing is, you suddenly changed communications mechanisms, added an 
authentication step, and changed the format for listing the requirements. That 
fragments the discussion between the original group participating, and the 
group that moves to the new(er) communications protocol.

And now you're saying that those that do not move to the new protocol, don't 
deserve to have (had) a voice?

This is a microcosm, a textbook example, a beautiful illustration of exactly 
what the culture-worries in the IM thread are about: you're going to lose 
people (for sure) and you're going to attract people (possibly), but the most 
effective thing to do in communication is to keep everyone in the loop.

(That said, I applaud the attempt to work together towards the creation of a 
list in a medium that is more conducive to reaching a "this is the document" 
than an email thread.)

[ade]

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Martin Steigerwald]

Christian Loosli - 09.08.17, 22:26:
> > Who's going to pick all those projects up after them? I'd like
> > to think that young enthusiasts with lots of energy and potential,
> > exactly what those heroes starting the original KDE were.
> 
> Who is going to be there for these new talents that lack experience? 
> 
> You need both, thus catering for one group specifically is, in my opinion, 
> stupid. 

*thank you*

I just wrote a post about making this very clear.

Please stop fighting "either / or". It won´t work. It easily visible from the 
structure of this thread already. How can some new chat system lovers and IRC 
users be happy?

Thanks,
-- 
Martin

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Eike Hein]

FWIW, I moderate a ~300k subscriber subreddit on the side, and that community 
substantially migrated away from Snoonet to Discord. I see that a lot on reddit 
now.


Cheers,
Eike
-- 
Plasma, apps developer
KDE e.V. vice president, treasurer
Seoul, South Korea

Please participate in the requirements Etherpad (Was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

Just in case my other email linking to the Etherpad was overlooked by some of 
you because it was buried too deep in the thread:

Let's make this discussion productive by collecting the requirements KDE has 
for a chat / IM system to become our standard in this document:

https://notes.kde.org/p/KDE_IM_requirements

This is supposed to be the basis for our evaluation and ultimately decision, 
so if you don't contribute, you don't get to complain later ;)

Cheers,
Thomas

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Christian Loosli]

Am Mittwoch, 9. August 2017, 16:12:51 CEST schrieb Martin Klapetek:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Christian Loosli  wrote:
> > Okay, this is more and more drifting away from being remotely productive
> > or
> > helpful, but as I provided a working solution on top level, I feel free to
> > tacke a few points that are, in my opinion, odd at best.
> > 
> > First let's tackle that mysterious group of < 20 year olds:
> > > > Is there any such organization at all?
> > > 
> > > Sure there is! Look at the tech startup scene, or the games industry.
> > > But okay, let’s say “predominantly younger than 30” to make it an easier
> > > task.
> > 
> > But KDE is not a tech startup. As people correctly wrote, KDE has a very
> > long
> > history and contributors of all age. I'd rather be that than one of the
> > many
> > tech startups with a bunch of little to no experience but fancy new chat
> > systems, to be honest.  Do we really want and need to cater these mystical
> > tweens so much?
> 
> Yes. Old contributors will slowly fade away for various
> reasons, be it life, be it lack of energy, be it other commitments.

Yes. Young talents will fade away for various reasons, be it life, having kids 
and a family or starting a career. 

> Who's going to pick all those projects up after them? I'd like
> to think that young enthusiasts with lots of energy and potential,
> exactly what those heroes starting the original KDE were.

Who is going to be there for these new talents that lack experience? 

You need both, thus catering for one group specifically is, in my opinion, 
stupid. 

> > Are they the holy grail that saves KDE and worth alienating
> > the people who are not this particular group?
> 
> It's not mutually exclusive.

This thread has a couple of very good examples of people feeling alienated due 
to it, so I'd dare to say it is a problem. 

> > Even if that is the case, to answer your question:  Yes, there are such
> > companies, plenty even. Basically a lot of companies which are exactly not
> > in
> > the small bubble that is  "tech start up", but other industries. Also
> > companies that actually have to do business with other companies, where
> > mail
> > simply still is the standard.
> > 
> > 
> > Then, on the subject of emojis, stickers or even the protocol used being
> > so
> > important:
> > 
> > Let's see what others do. Let's take our main, most famous friendly
> > competitor
> > GNOME. They even run their very own IRC network still, and actively code
> > new
> > IRC applications.
> > Mozilla? Own IRC network.
> > Reddit, quite the place for young techies and startup? Created their own
> > IRC
> > network. Hardly turning off or away people, it seems. If we fail to
> > attract
> > fresh blood, then maybe the problem is not actually "we use IRC".
> > 
> > But even if it would: to be honest, if someone decides what project they
> > want
> > to contribute due based on what chat protocol they use internally, I'm
> > personally not sure if that is a well suited candidate due to rather odd
> > priorities.
> 
> I think your view is a different angle - it's not that they would
> choose a project to contribute to based on what chat they use, but
> they would choose a project they feel most comfortable in. And yes
> day to day communication does make a big part of that comfort.

Dear god no. Most of that is actually the content, and not the protocol of 
that communication. The bickering we have on mailing lists, including people 
threatening to leave the project and year old feudes cooking up occasionally 
is way more a reason to stay away from a project than the protocols they may 
use.

> No matter how you look at it, IRC /is/ behind any other IM apps/protocols
> today. Young engineers communicate and prefer to communicate
> differently than you or me. 

I lead a team of young  (19 - 26) engineers, and I'm afraid I have to disagree 
with such blanket statements. Not to mention that freenode, _the_ very IRC 
thing, has a big amount of staffers that are between 20 and 25 and also people 
below 20. 

> I think it's absolutely crucial to understand
> them and their views/ways/whatever. Neglecting them would be a mistake.

Alienating long term contributors, switching around protocols fragmenting the 
community and not gaining new people regardless, because it was other things 
that kept them away, would be a mistake. 

> Cheers
> --
> Martin Klapetek

Kind regards, 

Christian

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Martin Klapetek]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Christian Loosli  wrote:

> Okay, this is more and more drifting away from being remotely productive or
> helpful, but as I provided a working solution on top level, I feel free to
> tacke a few points that are, in my opinion, odd at best.
>
> First let's tackle that mysterious group of < 20 year olds:
>
> > > Is there any such organization at all?
> >
> > Sure there is! Look at the tech startup scene, or the games industry.
> > But okay, let’s say “predominantly younger than 30” to make it an easier
> > task.
>
> But KDE is not a tech startup. As people correctly wrote, KDE has a very
> long
> history and contributors of all age. I'd rather be that than one of the
> many
> tech startups with a bunch of little to no experience but fancy new chat
> systems, to be honest.  Do we really want and need to cater these mystical
> tweens so much?


Yes. Old contributors will slowly fade away for various
reasons, be it life, be it lack of energy, be it other commitments.
Who's going to pick all those projects up after them? I'd like
to think that young enthusiasts with lots of energy and potential,
exactly what those heroes starting the original KDE were.
And I think we should strive to attract younger talent that can
be in it for the long run.


> Are they the holy grail that saves KDE and worth alienating
> the people who are not this particular group?
>

It's not mutually exclusive.


> Even if that is the case, to answer your question:  Yes, there are such
> companies, plenty even. Basically a lot of companies which are exactly not
> in
> the small bubble that is  "tech start up", but other industries. Also
> companies that actually have to do business with other companies, where
> mail
> simply still is the standard.
>
>
> Then, on the subject of emojis, stickers or even the protocol used being so
> important:
>
> Let's see what others do. Let's take our main, most famous friendly
> competitor
> GNOME. They even run their very own IRC network still, and actively code
> new
> IRC applications.
> Mozilla? Own IRC network.
> Reddit, quite the place for young techies and startup? Created their own
> IRC
> network. Hardly turning off or away people, it seems. If we fail to attract
> fresh blood, then maybe the problem is not actually "we use IRC".
>
> But even if it would: to be honest, if someone decides what project they
> want
> to contribute due based on what chat protocol they use internally, I'm
> personally not sure if that is a well suited candidate due to rather odd
> priorities.
>

I think your view is a different angle - it's not that they would
choose a project to contribute to based on what chat they use, but
they would choose a project they feel most comfortable in. And yes
day to day communication does make a big part of that comfort. No
matter how you look at it, IRC /is/ behind any other IM apps/protocols
today. Young engineers communicate and prefer to communicate
differently than you or me. I think it's absolutely crucial to understand
them and their views/ways/whatever. Neglecting them would be a mistake.

Cheers
--
Martin Klapetek

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Alexander Neundorf]

On 2017 M08 9, Wed 00:19:32 CEST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
...
> - Easy way to share files
> A solution that puts files automatically on share.kde.org and embeds them
> from there works only if we have people willing and able to implement that
> feature into a desktop- as well as mobile client

One thing I like in the google group chat is that you can post images and you 
can do simple free-hand drawing on these images (e.g. draw an arrow pointing 
to something). I think it has also builtin functionality for screenshots.
Both combined make it easy to talk about GUI stuff.
Do other IMs support this too ? (I haven't seen this in mattermost and slack)

Alex

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Christian Loosli wrote:

> But KDE is not a tech startup. As people correctly wrote, KDE has a very long 
> history and contributors of all age. I'd rather be that than one of the many 
> tech startups with a bunch of little to no experience but fancy new chat 
> systems, to be honest.  Do we really want and need to cater these mystical 
> tweens so much? Are they the holy grail that saves KDE and worth alienating 
> the people who are not this particular group? 

Indeed.

> Let's see what others do. Let's take our main, most famous friendly 
> competitor 
> GNOME. They even run their very own IRC network still, and actively code new 
> IRC applications. 
> Mozilla? Own IRC network. 
> Reddit, quite the place for young techies and startup? Created their own IRC 
> network. Hardly turning off or away people, it seems. If we fail to attract 
> fresh blood, then maybe the problem is not actually "we use IRC". 

Actually... That is a problem, at least for me, personally. Github is a place 
where everything gets mashed down to faceless anonymity. If our code would move
to Github we would lose our sense of community for ever. But... On Freenode, 
in the same application, the same mental space, I can be around in kde, kde on 
windows, krita, but also inkscape and scribus and vc and qt and some other 
things
where I might just lurk and learn, or sometimes be useful.

I've never lurked on gimp's irc channel, because it's on another network, and I
would feel like I were intruding. It would be better if they were on freenode 
as well.

The biggest problem I face on #krita isn't a lack of people joining, but a 
surfeit of people thinking it's something like a one-on-one scripted company
support chat. Having multiple conversations going on at the same time is very
mind-boggling for some people. But that's not in any of the lists of problems
I've seen in this discussion.

> 
> But even if it would: to be honest, if someone decides what project they want 
> to contribute due based on what chat protocol they use internally, I'm 
> personally not sure if that is a well suited candidate due to rather odd 
> priorities.

AOL

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Christian Loosli]

Okay, this is more and more drifting away from being remotely productive or 
helpful, but as I provided a working solution on top level, I feel free to 
tacke a few points that are, in my opinion, odd at best. 

First let's tackle that mysterious group of < 20 year olds: 

> > Is there any such organization at all?
> 
> Sure there is! Look at the tech startup scene, or the games industry.
> But okay, let’s say “predominantly younger than 30” to make it an easier
> task.

But KDE is not a tech startup. As people correctly wrote, KDE has a very long 
history and contributors of all age. I'd rather be that than one of the many 
tech startups with a bunch of little to no experience but fancy new chat 
systems, to be honest.  Do we really want and need to cater these mystical 
tweens so much? Are they the holy grail that saves KDE and worth alienating 
the people who are not this particular group? 

Even if that is the case, to answer your question:  Yes, there are such 
companies, plenty even. Basically a lot of companies which are exactly not in 
the small bubble that is  "tech start up", but other industries. Also 
companies that actually have to do business with other companies, where mail 
simply still is the standard. 


Then, on the subject of emojis, stickers or even the protocol used being so 
important: 

Let's see what others do. Let's take our main, most famous friendly competitor 
GNOME. They even run their very own IRC network still, and actively code new 
IRC applications. 
Mozilla? Own IRC network. 
Reddit, quite the place for young techies and startup? Created their own IRC 
network. Hardly turning off or away people, it seems. If we fail to attract 
fresh blood, then maybe the problem is not actually "we use IRC". 

But even if it would: to be honest, if someone decides what project they want 
to contribute due based on what chat protocol they use internally, I'm 
personally not sure if that is a well suited candidate due to rather odd 
priorities.

Last but not least: if IRC really is so much of an issue, which I doubt: there 
are solutions readily available (Tg and Matrix bridge) or available in the 
future (Rocket bridge) which do resolve the problem whilst still maintaining 
compatibility for people who prefer what worked for 20 years and still works. 
So the reasons to continue with a replacement I can see are either "We want to 
get rid of the other one completely and enforce this one" or "we want it NOW", 
both of which I heavily have to disagree with for various reasons already 
mentioned. 

TL;DR: no. 

Kind regards, 

Christian 

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Martin Klapetek]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Pfeiffer 
wrote:

>
> > On 09 Aug 2017, at 20:00, Boudewijn Rempt  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> >
> >> So unless someone can give me an example of an organization younger
> than 10
> >> years, with predominantly people younger than 25,
> >
> > Is there any such organization at all?
> >
>
> Sure there is! Look at the tech startup scene, or the games industry.
> But okay, let’s say “predominantly younger than 30” to make it an easier
> task.
>

Can confirm. I work in a tech startup less than 10 years
old with people predominantly younger than 30. We use
emails internally only for announcements (max 2 per week).
For everything else we use instant messaging. In fact, we
have all the tooling hooked up to the IM, so even new code
review or failed CI pings you on the IM. Heck, we even hooked
the main door lock to the IM, so you can open doors with
a simple message (has proper auth and everything).

>From seeing other startups in the neighbourhood, I can
tell you that all of those I've seen are like that - using whatever
is the latest hip IM client because startups have to be "cool".
And that raised a generation of engineers that take it for granted
that orgs they'd be potentially interested in use some 21st
century chat stack (but not only, GitHub is another great example).
If they don't, they're automatically less interested.

I agree with Thomas. If this is the kind of talent we'd like to
attract, we need evolve.

Cheers
--
Martin Klapetek

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:

> 
> > On 09 Aug 2017, at 20:00, Boudewijn Rempt  wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > 
> >> So unless someone can give me an example of an organization younger than 
> >> 10 
> >> years, with predominantly people younger than 25, 
> > 
> > Is there any such organization at all?
> > 
> 
> Sure there is! Look at the tech startup scene, or the games industry. 
> But okay, let’s say “predominantly younger than 30” to make it an easier task.

Oh, you're talking about companies, not organizations.

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Albert Astals Cid wrote:

> You can't expect me to read a 200 messages backlog in 20 channels just in 
> case 
> something important was said while i was away. 

Well, I keep running irssi in a screen session because... I feel I have to, but
I am getting better at not replying to things that happened to go bump in the
nigh.,

> Telegram messages end up in my phone, and show a notification, so i have to 
> read it because my mind wants my task bar without notifications, but once 
> read 
> the "you have to read this" is gone, so if it's something important i need to 
> do later i will forget and won't get done.

Same here!

> And to top that off there's no way to "log off from channels" like on IRC 
> (where i am on some channels during work day and some others on non work 
> day),  
> so it creates the false impression that i'm "always avaiable" when i'm not 
> and 
> that together with the "no way to mark messages as unread if they are 
> important" makes it really bad for serious use.

Oh yes, indeed!
-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:

> So unless someone can give me an example of an organization younger than 10 
> years, with predominantly people younger than 25, 

Is there any such organization at all?

> which uses email as their 
> main format of text communication

Even without this rider.

> , I maintain my statement. 

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dimecres, 9 d’agost de 2017, a les 9:45:13 CEST, Thomas Pfeiffer va 
escriure:
> On Dienstag, 8. August 2017 23:52:40 CEST Christian Loosli wrote:
> > > Looking at #kde-devel just now it says:
> > > <-- swati_27 (uid130066@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-abaollxcgicrxgwg)
> > > has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
> > > <-- nowrep (~david@kde/developer/drosca) has quit (Quit: Konversation
> > > terminated!)
> > > <-- stikonas (~gentoo@wesnoth/translator/stikonas) has quit (Quit:
> > > Konversation terminated!)
> > > <-- soee_ (~s...@bmi112.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) has quit (Quit:
> > > Konversation terminated!)
> > > --> soee (~s...@bmi112.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) has joined #kde-devel
> > > 
> > > Show that to most people and they'll just not want to know what it means
> > 
> > Good thing every single client coming to mind has a feature to hide these,
> > including the official KDE client Konversation.
> > 
> > http://wiki.xkcd.com/irc/hide_join_part_messages
> > 
> > I'm rather sure that most other protocols, at least Telegram most
> > certainly
> > does, do also show when someone joined or parted a group, mind.
> > The part they might hide is the  nick!ident@host part. This is client
> > dependent, some do and quite a lot of them can hide it. So I wouldn't
> > really recommend switching to a completely different protocol due to
> > "shows additional info when someone joins or leaves the group".
> 
> The bigger issue seen in what Jonathan pasted isn't that IRC clients show
> when people join or leave a group. The issue is that it shows when people
> close their IRC client. And the problem is not that it shows them, but that
> this is _relevant_ because it means they can't follow the conversation
> anymore.

This is a feature and not a bug.

Instant messanging is for instant communication, if i'm not there i don't care 
what happened, important things should be sent by email or other actually 
archiveable format.

You can't expect me to read a 200 messages backlog in 20 channels just in case 
something important was said while i was away. 

Also one of the reasons of why i hate to use Telegram for anything that 
"actually matters" is this "always on" feature.

Telegram messages end up in my phone, and show a notification, so i have to 
read it because my mind wants my task bar without notifications, but once read 
the "you have to read this" is gone, so if it's something important i need to 
do later i will forget and won't get done.

And to top that off there's no way to "log off from channels" like on IRC 
(where i am on some channels during work day and some others on non work day),  
so it creates the false impression that i'm "always avaiable" when i'm not and 
that together with the "no way to mark messages as unread if they are 
important" makes it really bad for serious use.

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> That's not the case for modern protocols where people only stop seeing the
> conversation if they actively leave the group (which is whey they do show
> that, but it happens far less often than people quitting their IRC client).
> 
> And see my requirements email for my reply to "But we have a ZNC instance".

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dimecres, 9 d’agost de 2017, a les 9:36:42 CEST, Thomas Pfeiffer va 
escriure:
> On Mittwoch, 9. August 2017 01:59:00 CEST Christian Loosli wrote:
> > PS: on the importance of emojis and (animated) stickers: I can see why
> > people want them for friends and family, I love the sticker packs I have
> > on
> > Telegram. But why it is mandatory in a somewhat more professional
> > environment is a bit beyond me, people also still use e-mail despite it
> > neither supporting stickers nor emojis  (Well, unless html mails, but
> > thank
> > god that at least there we agree that it is an abomination)
> 
> It's just that young people do _not_ use email unless absolutely forced to.
> There is a reason why it can take days until someone replies to an email on
> the VDG mailing list, while the various Telegram groups the VDG is in are
> buzzing with activity.
> Or why my coworkers (professional environment, but a gaming company so
> predominantly people younger than me) hardly ever send an email but do
> everything on Slack.
> 
> Emoji certainly are not the only reason for that, but they are an important
> contributor to making communication on Telegram or Slack feel more natural
> than fun than email. Email is not fun at all.
> 
> So unless someone can give me an example of an organization younger than 10
> years, with predominantly people younger than 25, which uses email as their
> main format of text communication, I maintain my statement.

Remember, while trying to cater for those mythical young people that are not 
contributing just because we use IRC, we should try to not scare away those 
actual contributors that actually like using IRC.

Cheers,
  Albert

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Ben Cooksley]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Elvis Angelaccio
 wrote:
> On mercoledì 9 agosto 2017 11:47:24 CEST, David Edmundson wrote:
>>>
>>> We should probably also ask the sysadmin team whether they would be
>>> willing to maintain our own chat server.
>>
>>
>> That's "maintain a third chat server".
>>
>> They maintain both kdetalk (jabber) and Conpherence (phabricator) already.
>
>
> Right. Though I think Conpherence is provided by phabricator "for free" (no
> additional maintainance required).

The only "additional" maintenance as it were is the Phabricator
notifications server component Aphlict, which you need to run anyway
to be notified of changes to pages by others (it's what allows the
Page has changed, please reload messages)

So yes, it's maintenance free.

>
>>
>> David
>>
>

Cheers,
Ben

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Christian Loosli]

Hi, 

Yup, I am aware, I already did spread that freenode internally a couple of 
weeks ago (when I saw the first post on planet KDE), thanks. 

Our current issue is more the mix of authentication systems and to use 
something like SAML or the likes to integrate them, which, as far as I am 
aware, is not a point resolved in brooklyn  (minor sidenote: that name is 
already taken by the apache foundation). 

I'm sure we'd get in touch with them once we are in a stage where we tackle 
the problems brooklyn tackles, unfortunately as an already existing network we 
have a couple of additional things to tackle first. 

Thanks for the info, kind regards, 

Christian 

Am Mittwoch, 9. August 2017, 09:49:27 CEST schrieb Cristian Baldi:
> We have a GSoC student working on a RocketChat<~>Telegram<~>Irc bridge
> which as of now has support for files, images, video messages and so on.
> Take a look here
> http://rivadavide.blogspot.com/2017/08/brooklyn-02-released-ready-for.html
> .  We are using it at WikiToLearn and it is working fine.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 11:28 Christian Loosli  wrote:
> > Post Scriptum, as I discussed this and learned that what I hinted at in
> > the -
> > cafe channel yesterday is public information:
> > 
> > We (freenode) are looking into support (not moving to, mind) for rocket.
> > Some details can be found here:  https://www.facebook.com/eximious/posts/
> > 
> > 10155436766365761?comment_id=10155438680590761_tracking=%7B%22tn%2
> > 2%3A %22R3%22%7D
> >  > 5438680590761_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R3%22%7D>
> > 
> > (sorry for facebook link, quote for those who rather not:
> > "We (freenode) have had quite a few conversations with projects that
> > struggle
> > with Slack -- they use it but are finding it difficult, partly because it
> > is
> > proprietary and doesn't align too well with their values and partly
> > because it
> > is resulting in a great deal of community fragmentation. We're currently
> > looking at implementing rocket.chat support to allow projects such as
> > those to
> > map their own rocket.chat instances to their channel namespace on freenode
> > in
> > a bid to reduce the community fragmentation they experience. Totally
> > hoping
> > that it will solve those issues for them!")
> > 
> > which might be a solution that pleases both people who want to use Rocket
> > and
> > people who want to not abandon other more or less well used protocols.
> > 
> > Bonus points: due to the Matrix and Telegram bridge we already have, if we
> > manage to properly integrate Rocket, one can probably use either of the
> > four
> > and be happy. Obviously with some loss of features, as e.g. protocol a
> > might
> > not support something of protocol b. How well this will be implemented
> > depends
> > on the bridge, e.g. files or stickers could be integrated via links iff
> > someone
> > codes that.
> > 
> > Unfortunately IRC would still not get support for animated stickers and
> > custom
> > pile of poop emojis, sorry to crush hopes there.
> > 
> > Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, I wasn't sure at this very early
> > stage
> > whether it is public or not.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Christian

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Cristian Baldi]

We have a GSoC student working on a RocketChat<~>Telegram<~>Irc bridge
which as of now has support for files, images, video messages and so on.
Take a look here
http://rivadavide.blogspot.com/2017/08/brooklyn-02-released-ready-for.html
.  We are using it at WikiToLearn and it is working fine.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 11:28 Christian Loosli  wrote:

> Post Scriptum, as I discussed this and learned that what I hinted at in
> the -
> cafe channel yesterday is public information:
>
> We (freenode) are looking into support (not moving to, mind) for rocket.
> Some details can be found here:  https://www.facebook.com/eximious/posts/
>
> 10155436766365761?comment_id=10155438680590761_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A
> %22R3%22%7D
> 
>
> (sorry for facebook link, quote for those who rather not:
> "We (freenode) have had quite a few conversations with projects that
> struggle
> with Slack -- they use it but are finding it difficult, partly because it
> is
> proprietary and doesn't align too well with their values and partly
> because it
> is resulting in a great deal of community fragmentation. We're currently
> looking at implementing rocket.chat support to allow projects such as
> those to
> map their own rocket.chat instances to their channel namespace on freenode
> in
> a bid to reduce the community fragmentation they experience. Totally hoping
> that it will solve those issues for them!")
>
> which might be a solution that pleases both people who want to use Rocket
> and
> people who want to not abandon other more or less well used protocols.
>
> Bonus points: due to the Matrix and Telegram bridge we already have, if we
> manage to properly integrate Rocket, one can probably use either of the
> four
> and be happy. Obviously with some loss of features, as e.g. protocol a
> might
> not support something of protocol b. How well this will be implemented
> depends
> on the bridge, e.g. files or stickers could be integrated via links iff
> someone
> codes that.
>
> Unfortunately IRC would still not get support for animated stickers and
> custom
> pile of poop emojis, sorry to crush hopes there.
>
> Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, I wasn't sure at this very early
> stage
> whether it is public or not.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christian
>
-- 

Cristian Baldi

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[David Edmundson]

>We should probably also ask the sysadmin team whether they would be
willing to maintain our own chat server.

That's "maintain a third chat server".

They maintain both kdetalk (jabber) and Conpherence (phabricator) already.

David

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Marco Martin]

On Wednesday 09 August 2017 00:19:32 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:

> - FOSS clients or at least API available for desktop as well as mobile
> These clients must
>  - have a UI that someone who is < 20 years old and cares about the looks of
> a UI would use (or if those don't exist, we need to have people willing and
> able to write them before switching)

..and that someone that is >20 would use as well, as many times to have pretty 
ui is just chosen the easy route of cutting away useful features

> Nice-to-haves:
> 
> - Bridge to IRC
> For the transitional period or for people who just refuse to change their
> habits

this is absolutely a must, our current community on all our irc channels is 
our biggest asset, and i see in this thread is treated more or less like a 
nuisance (like Eike said, there would have not been 20 years of KDE without 
it) i would even say a complete bridge to freenode already there is a must.

-- 
Marco Martin

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Christian Loosli]

Post Scriptum, as I discussed this and learned that what I hinted at in the -
cafe channel yesterday is public information:

We (freenode) are looking into support (not moving to, mind) for rocket. 
Some details can be found here:  https://www.facebook.com/eximious/posts/
10155436766365761?comment_id=10155438680590761_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A
%22R3%22%7D  

(sorry for facebook link, quote for those who rather not:
"We (freenode) have had quite a few conversations with projects that struggle 
with Slack -- they use it but are finding it difficult, partly because it is 
proprietary and doesn't align too well with their values and partly because it 
is resulting in a great deal of community fragmentation. We're currently 
looking at implementing rocket.chat support to allow projects such as those to 
map their own rocket.chat instances to their channel namespace on freenode in 
a bid to reduce the community fragmentation they experience. Totally hoping 
that it will solve those issues for them!")

which might be a solution that pleases both people who want to use Rocket and 
people who want to not abandon other more or less well used protocols. 

Bonus points: due to the Matrix and Telegram bridge we already have, if we 
manage to properly integrate Rocket, one can probably use either of the four 
and be happy. Obviously with some loss of features, as e.g. protocol a might 
not support something of protocol b. How well this will be implemented depends 
on the bridge, e.g. files or stickers could be integrated via links iff someone 
codes that. 

Unfortunately IRC would still not get support for animated stickers and custom 
pile of poop emojis, sorry to crush hopes there. 

Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, I wasn't sure at this very early stage 
whether it is public or not.

Regards, 

Christian

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

> On 09 Aug 2017, at 09:57, Adriaan de Groot  wrote:
> 
> Can we please keep this thread limited to collecting-requirements, and 
> therefore arguing over which requirements are required or what their weight 
> is? That, rather than re-hashing the discussion elsewhere on which platform 
> with which sub- and superset of features is popular in which location.

You are right, inviting people to challenge my proposals right away wasn’t such 
a good idea in hindsight.

Furthermore, this sub-thread has reminded me again that while email is great 
for having permanently and publicly archived discussions, it is terrible for 
collecting information (any chat protocol would be equally terrible for that, 
of course) because contributions by different people tend to become spread over 
multiple emails.

So to fix this as well as to keep information gathering separate from 
discussion, let’s do the former in a format that makes more sense for it:

https://notes.kde.org/p/KDE_IM_requirements

Once we’ve agreed on a list (if we ever do), it could make sense to move that 
to the Community wiki for searchability and everything, but for brainstorming 
Etherpad usually works better.

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Christian Loosli]

Am Dienstag, 8. August 2017, 20:05:16 CEST schrieb Jonathan Frederickson:
> Matrix has all of these, with the exception of perhaps "Multi-identity"
> and "Anonymous." (But it's HTTP, so you can tunnel it over Tor, there's
> no real name requirement as it's an open federated protocol, and you can
> create multiple accounts and use them for different purposes if you want.)

Matrix gets these via the IRC bridge if needed, since we (freenode) do support 
Tor more or less natively, and obviously IRC also supports multi-identity. 
 
> (By the way, I'm not affiliated with the Matrix project at all - I'm an
> enthusiastic user, and I've contributed Matrix support to a chatbot, but
> that's it!)

I'm fine with Matrix, we (freenode) are currently collaborating with them in 
order to fix the various broken things in their bridge, once that is done, I'd 
say it's a decent thing. Personally I wouldn't use it, but the good thing is: 
I don't have to, it is bridged already. 

Kind regards, 

Christian

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Agustin Benito (toscalix)]

Hi,

I have opened right now konversation with 25 channels, 10 from them
corporate channels and many others to talk to developers from
different projects, KDE telepathy for my Google and facebook contacts,
Telegram for my KDE and openSUSE support questions since users seem to
be moving there and I use it in my mobile, Slack for a couple of
projects...  The picture in my mobile is not a better one, by the way.

The problem for me is not which one to use but how can I reduce the
number of apps I use right now. We live in an heterogeneous world.
What can we do about it?

KDE can be part of the solution or part of the problem. Selecting one
option and moving everybody there seems to me like moving towards
being part of the problem. I would move towards creating a solution
compatible with most of the current solutions so by using KDE you do
not need to have 25 chat-like apps opened (Integration is a feature)
and let each group decide which app is better for them.


Saludos

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[KDE]

Hi!

> On 9. Aug 2017, at 10:08, Adriaan de Groot  > wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday 09 August 2017 09:45:13 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
>> That's not the case for modern protocols where people only stop seeing the 
>> conversation if they actively leave the group (which is whey they do show 
>> that, but it happens far less often than people quitting their IRC client).
>> 
>> And see my requirements email for my reply to "But we have a ZNC instance". 
> 
> Can you add this to the collecting-requirements thread?
> 
> - non ephemeral
> - searchable
> - stored offline for later retrieval

At the “goal post BOF” during Akademy I proposed building a real free software, 
simply working modern chat solution as a possible milestone project. I would 
like to add to the requirements:
based on open standards (e.g., Unicode emojis but no custom ones)
coherent chat experience (e.g., a user sees the same messages in channels and 
chats no matter which of the multiple devices she connects from and when)

I am pretty sure that no solution exists that fits the bill 100%. This may be 
an opportunity for the KDE community to shine and build something that is not 
open core (like Mattermost) or fake-free (like Telegram) and actually 
interoperable. And it needs a great UX, which is exactly our mission. 

Mirko.
-- 
Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org  | KDE e.V.
FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer
Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm 

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Wednesday 09 August 2017 09:45:13 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> That's not the case for modern protocols where people only stop seeing the 
> conversation if they actively leave the group (which is whey they do show 
> that, but it happens far less often than people quitting their IRC client).
> 
> And see my requirements email for my reply to "But we have a ZNC instance". 

Can you add this to the collecting-requirements thread?

 - non ephemeral
 - searchable
 - stored offline for later retrieval

You're making a really strong case for HTML email (it can contain pictures!).

[ade]

PS. Not sure whether "/s" u'1F644' or 
http://telegramhub.net/sarcastic-polar-bear/ is the right mechanism to indicate 
the intended emotional sub-not-text.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On Mittwoch, 9. August 2017 09:36:42 CEST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 9. August 2017 01:59:00 CEST Christian Loosli wrote:
> > PS: on the importance of emojis and (animated) stickers: I can see why
> > people want them for friends and family, I love the sticker packs I have
> > on
> > Telegram. But why it is mandatory in a somewhat more professional
> > environment is a bit beyond me, people also still use e-mail despite it
> > neither supporting stickers nor emojis  (Well, unless html mails, but
> > thank
> > god that at least there we agree that it is an abomination)
> 
> It's just that young people do _not_ use email unless absolutely forced to.
> There is a reason why it can take days until someone replies to an email on
> the VDG mailing list, while the various Telegram groups the VDG is in are
> buzzing with activity.
> Or why my coworkers (professional environment, but a gaming company so
> predominantly people younger than me) hardly ever send an email but do
> everything on Slack.
> 
> Emoji certainly are not the only reason for that, but they are an important
> contributor to making communication on Telegram or Slack feel more natural
> than fun than email. Email is not fun at all.

I meant ore natural _and_ fun than email, of course. And here we have another 
thing  feature I sorely miss whenever I have to use one of the old 
communication protocols: The ability to edit my messages.

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Adriaan de Groot]

Can we please keep this thread limited to collecting-requirements, and 
therefore arguing over which requirements are required or what their weight 
is? That, rather than re-hashing the discussion elsewhere on which platform 
with which sub- and superset of features is popular in which location.


Top-posting, because this is email and I can annoy people by doing so.
GPG-signing, because this is email and I can do so.
Taking the time to write a longer response, because this is email and I can do 
so(*).

On Wednesday 09 August 2017 09:36:42 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 9. August 2017 01:59:00 CEST Christian Loosli wrote:
> > PS: on the importance of emojis and (animated) stickers: I can see why
> > people want them for friends and family, I love the sticker packs I have

IM is communication, and communication is culture. Let's not forget that. Paul 
Adams and I once experimented with the "dude" communication protocol, which 
contains only one word, "dude", and a vast range of intonations, tone-
lengthenings, and eye-rolls. It was a very effective and largely encrypted 
real-time, face-to-face, communications mechanism. Hard to teach to others, 
though.

Culture, though, is learned. And culture is often local. As Christian and 
Thomas's messages express, the locality matters; the population matters. So 
before we dive into "this is a useless feature for me", let's inventory. 
Collect requirements. Then we can also describe, later, which populations or 
cultures have that specific requirement.

> It's just that young people do _not_ use email unless absolutely forced to.

Driving this kind of stake in the sand isn't helping the discussion. Also, we 
are not talking about email -- which is a non-ephemeral, searchable, 
permanently archivable, signable, threadable communications mechanism -- right 
now.

And you know what? Even using email is a cultural thing; culture is all about 
forcing people to do things. I forced my kids to eat with knife and fork, 
because that's my culture. I forced them to stop pooping their pants. I forced 
them to look at me (and not their phone) when talking to me. They forced me to 
accept that some music, created in the 1980's, does not suck. Culture can 
develop and change, too.

> There is a reason why it can take days until someone replies to an email on
> the VDG mailing list, while the various Telegram groups the VDG is in are
> buzzing with activity.

So? Again: collect requirements. Then talk about which requirements are 
inspired by what kind of community / culture / population.

[ade]


(*) But email is not an IM / chat functionality, so it is expected to have 
totally different characteristics from an IM client.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On Dienstag, 8. August 2017 23:52:40 CEST Christian Loosli wrote:

> > Looking at #kde-devel just now it says:
> > <-- swati_27 (uid130066@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-abaollxcgicrxgwg)
> > has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
> > <-- nowrep (~david@kde/developer/drosca) has quit (Quit: Konversation
> > terminated!)
> > <-- stikonas (~gentoo@wesnoth/translator/stikonas) has quit (Quit:
> > Konversation terminated!)
> > <-- soee_ (~s...@bmi112.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) has quit (Quit:
> > Konversation terminated!)
> > --> soee (~s...@bmi112.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) has joined #kde-devel
> > 
> > Show that to most people and they'll just not want to know what it means
> 
> Good thing every single client coming to mind has a feature to hide these,
> including the official KDE client Konversation.
> 
> http://wiki.xkcd.com/irc/hide_join_part_messages
> 
> I'm rather sure that most other protocols, at least Telegram most certainly
> does, do also show when someone joined or parted a group, mind.
> The part they might hide is the  nick!ident@host part. This is client
> dependent, some do and quite a lot of them can hide it. So I wouldn't really
> recommend switching to a completely different protocol due to "shows
> additional info when someone joins or leaves the group".

The bigger issue seen in what Jonathan pasted isn't that IRC clients show when 
people join or leave a group. The issue is that it shows when people close 
their IRC client. And the problem is not that it shows them, but that this is 
_relevant_ because it means they can't follow the conversation anymore.

That's not the case for modern protocols where people only stop seeing the 
conversation if they actively leave the group (which is whey they do show 
that, but it happens far less often than people quitting their IRC client).

And see my requirements email for my reply to "But we have a ZNC instance". 

Re: Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On Mittwoch, 9. August 2017 01:59:00 CEST Christian Loosli wrote:

> PS: on the importance of emojis and (animated) stickers: I can see why
> people want them for friends and family, I love the sticker packs I have on
> Telegram. But why it is mandatory in a somewhat more professional
> environment is a bit beyond me, people also still use e-mail despite it
> neither supporting stickers nor emojis  (Well, unless html mails, but thank
> god that at least there we agree that it is an abomination)

It's just that young people do _not_ use email unless absolutely forced to. 
There is a reason why it can take days until someone replies to an email on 
the VDG mailing list, while the various Telegram groups the VDG is in are 
buzzing with activity.
Or why my coworkers (professional environment, but a gaming company so 
predominantly people younger than me) hardly ever send an email but do 
everything on Slack.

Emoji certainly are not the only reason for that, but they are an important 
contributor to making communication on Telegram or Slack feel more natural 
than fun than email. Email is not fun at all.

So unless someone can give me an example of an organization younger than 10 
years, with predominantly people younger than 25, which uses email as their 
main format of text communication, I maintain my statement. 

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Cristian Baldi]

Hey, just to add to the list of options.

Recently GitLab purchased and open sourceed gitter https://gitter.im

>From the list of features it does look great and is being used by tons of
open source projects, mostly in the web development field.

You can self host it but from reading a bit it looks like you need quite a
bit of server resources: there were like 3 database servers to install.

Another options would be https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/conpherence/
which is integrated into phabricator. It is only web based for now and it
is being used by some of the guys at MediaWiki
https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Using_Conpherence

I don't feel like these could be the best choices but I am just sending
them here because they went unnoticed.

Cristian

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 04:53 Eike Hein  wrote:

>
> FWIW, I didn't keep up with Matrix to well in recent times, but
> I remember having a look at it back when it made its first
> splash (the LWN article at all) and at the time I considered
> it the most promising-looking IRC replacement attempt yet.
>
> It had some of the traits of other attempts that failed
> before (larger per-message overhead, lots of complicated state
> on the server, problems with scaling to really large channels)
> but also made a lot of tasteful and practical choices.
>
> I understand they changed their public focus to portraying
> itself as a bridging solution to create any adoption, but at
> the core is a good chat system of its own.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Eike
>
-- 

Cristian Baldi

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Eike Hein]

FWIW, I didn't keep up with Matrix to well in recent times, but
I remember having a look at it back when it made its first
splash (the LWN article at all) and at the time I considered
it the most promising-looking IRC replacement attempt yet.

It had some of the traits of other attempts that failed
before (larger per-message overhead, lots of complicated state
on the server, problems with scaling to really large channels)
but also made a lot of tasteful and practical choices.

I understand they changed their public focus to portraying
itself as a bridging solution to create any adoption, but at
the core is a good chat system of its own.


Cheers,
Eike

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Martin Klapetek]

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Christian Loosli  wrote:

> Am Dienstag, 8. August 2017, 20:17:08 CEST schrieb Cristian Baldi:
> > Hey there,
>
> Hello hello,
>
> > [Various Issues I agree with]
>
> > Rocket.Chat does not have an official mobile client as of today, again
> > Ruquola could solve this once it is compiled for Android. Right now the
> > official way to use Rocket.Chat on mobile is to use some kind of wrapped
> > WebView which does not work well (when I had that installed I did not
> > receive notifications or received them randomly).
>
> Same goes for slack and mattermost, and these things are horrible.
> First of all: they are massive battery and memory hogs.
>
> Same goes for the electron based wrappers that are sometimes used on the
> desktop.
>
> Also they don't integrate UX wise.
>

I use Slack exclusively as the only work IM tool and
none of the above is true. I'd say even the opposite.
The experience on Android is pretty well integrated
and overall it's a solid IM experience. Not once the
battery usage showed near the top in the "apps most
using battery".

That's not to say "Slack's the best go for Slack", but
just painting a different picture, coming from daily 10+
hours of using it.


>
> > As Jonathan said Rocket.Chat (but really, any modern messaging system)
> > offers tons of features missing from IRC.
>
> Out of interest: what exactly does IRC lack? There are 4 things coming to
> mind
> for me, all of them with my personal opinion:
>
> - Lack of emojis and stickers: whilst I think it's great that I can send
> stickers of kitties hugging each other on Telegram, I hardly see a need for
> that in a more "professional" environment. Emojis are UTF-8 and thus
> technically work on IRC and clients can handle them, if they want.
>

In our professional work environment, we use emojis
/a lot/. Like, seriously a lot. It makes the experience
that much more...human. IRC next to it feels very cold
and raw, imho.

Cheers
--
Martin Klapetek

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Jonathan Frederickson]

On 08/08/2017 05:57 PM, Eike Hein wrote:
> But what I don't want us to do is abandon IRC without retaining
> what made IRC successful and good. Some of these things areed
> technical points that form our most basic requirements:
> 
> - Free
> - Protocol spec
> - Self-hostable
> - Federated
> - Multi-identity
> - Anonymous
> - Encryptable

Matrix has all of these, with the exception of perhaps "Multi-identity"
and "Anonymous." (But it's HTTP, so you can tunnel it over Tor, there's
no real name requirement as it's an open federated protocol, and you can
create multiple accounts and use them for different purposes if you want.)

> There are some chat systems that allow for both, e.g.
> Discord. Discord heavily fails all of our technical base-
> line reqs, but its three-level namespacing (global name-
> space for user identities, "servers", and channels on them
> which you see in an easy list) means you can easily have
> your permanent channels along with potentially task force
> ones that can't hide.

A Discord-like "server" system is coming very soon in Matrix, which will
give you effectively that - a list of rooms belonging to a specific
organization. As it stands now, its UI (in Riot, the official client) is
somewhere in between IRC and Telegram. While they're fundamentally the
same thing, there are two ways to create a room in the UI, which roughly
correspond to IRC-style permanent rooms and Telegram-style one-off rooms.

(By the way, I'm not affiliated with the Matrix project at all - I'm an
enthusiastic user, and I've contributed Matrix support to a chatbot, but
that's it!)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Collecting requirements for a KDE-wide instant messaging solution (was: Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat)

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

Hi everyone,
now that hopefully most of the emotional arguments in fiery support of one 
protocol or another have been exchanged, I'd suggest we move things towards a 
practical approach and ask ourselves:

What are the requirements that KDE has for an instant messaging / chat system 
for it to be viable as our main channel for real-time communication for the 
foreseeable future?

Here is what I could come up with, feel free to add new requirements or 
challenge the ones I'm listing.

Must-have:

- FOSS clients or at least API available for desktop as well as mobile
These clients must 
 - have a UI that someone who is < 20 years old and cares about the looks of a 
UI would use (or if those don't exist, we need to have people willing and able 
to write them before switching) 
 - run smoothly on computers that can run most other KDE software, without 
eating all of their memory

- FOSS server implementation
(this might look like a nice-to-have for some, but if we'd require everyone in 
KDE to use it, it's not optional)

- Ability to use without having to create a new account just for that.
We could force contributors to sign up for something, but we'd increase the 
barrier of entry if we'd make it mandatory for everyone who's just curious 
about what's happening in KDE.
Identity would suffice, as everyone who does anything with KDE has an Identity 
account anyway.

- Permanent logs across mobile and desktop clients without the need for users 
to set up anything.
That means ZNC does not count unless we implement it in a desktop as well as 
mobile client in a way that is completely friction-free for users

- Easy way to share files
A solution that puts files automatically on share.kde.org and embeds them from 
there works only if we have people willing and able to implement that feature 
into a desktop- as well as mobile client

- Support for a decent set of Emoji (not just the ones you can create using 
ASCII chars).
Using Unicode to display them is probably okay, as long as users can choose 
them from a menu in the client instead of having to paste them from 
KCharSelect.
This, too, might sound like nice-to-have for many, but not having them would 
cut us off from the younger generation. Yes, they use them even in a 
"professional context". Believe me, I'm seeing it in action every day at work.

- User avatars
Again, must-have if we want to reach the younger generation

- Uses a port that is open even on educational networks

- Channel listing
So that every public channel can be easily found


Nice-to-haves:

- Bridge to IRC
For the transitional period or for people who just refuse to change their 
habits

- Full name display
Makes things feel more trustworthy

- Integration with our development tools such as Phabricator

- Web client
Very handy if you are at a device which isn't yours and quickly want to check 
up on things

- Stickers
People love them when they have them, but they survive without them.

---
I'm sure I've forgot many things, but this (already quite long) list should 
give us a good start.

Looking forward to a productive discussion,
Thomas

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Eike Hein]

I guess as KDE's "IRC guy" (I maintain Konversation) I should chime
in here.

I like IRC. I regard IRC as important. I think without IRC none of
the past 20 years of KDE would have happened, and the reasons for
IRC being a successful technology for us and many others start
with "chatting is nice" and "it's free, duh" but go far beyond.

I'm not particularly emotional about abandoning IRC. It's a pretty
bad protocol. It doesn't have intact governance to really make it
better at a decent clip, despite earnest attempts. It doesn't
address problems modern networking brings with it adequately, and
the workarounds are clumsy.

I'm not even particularly emotional about the code in Konversation.
Some of it is pretty good, but what makes it good can be applied
elsewhere. Some of the UI is really clever for a chat app, but
again, I can (perhaps with a sigh) replicate that work elswhere.

But what I don't want us to do is abandon IRC without retaining
what made IRC successful and good. Some of these things areed
technical points that form our most basic requirements:

- Free
- Protocol spec
- Self-hostable
- Federated
- Multi-identity
- Anonymous
- Encryptable

But again, these are basics.

The more interesting lessons from IRC are social dynamics.

As an example, the currently second most used chat system by
the KDE community is probably Telegram. Telegram doesn't meet
the above technical requirements and so isn't a good choice for
us. The reason we use it is because someone started using it for
one of two reasons at some point (IRC sucks on mobile - yes,
even with ZNC - and/or a better workflow for dealing with image
content), and now we continue because of momentum, without much
planning or thought.

I think the way we currently use Telegram is horrific for
community-building and community cohesion and hurting us. As
a mobile-dominated messenger not designed with our use cases
in mind, Telegram's group chat workflow suggests creating
groups easily ad-hoc. It's designed for "let me quickly
invite the four people we're planning to go to the Italian
place with to coordinate the arrival time".

This workflow has some use for "breakout" topic chats in the
KDE context, but because Telegram doesn't have any concept of
community namespacing, we now have probably dozens of those
there that aren't enumerated anywhere. You have to know they
exist and who to ask to be invited. Or someone has to know you
exist and invite you.

IRC on the other hand (via network services and etiquette)
disincentivizes creating channels ad-hoc, it's more about
setting up channels as institutions with some permanance,
so they can be documented and discovered. A good IRC channel
allows for random walk-ins instead of being a sequestered
little clique/club.

That means sometimes you have to contend with the noise of
lots of people that don't work on what you and three other
people are currently trying to work on. But that means you're
open to new people, you have an environment for getting to
know each other, you inform each other about what everyone
is working on without trying, you have space to "hang out"
in together and see what this new day brings along, you
can place notifications there, you get feedback from out-
side of your self-imposed bubbles, you generate excitement
for onlookers ... the information flow across the -
extensible! - community is just vastly better.

There are some chat systems that allow for both, e.g.
Discord. Discord heavily fails all of our technical base-
line reqs, but its three-level namespacing (global name-
space for user identities, "servers", and channels on them
which you see in an easy list) means you can easily have
your permanent channels along with potentially task force
ones that can't hide.

This is the discussion we should be having. It's about what
we actually want to get out of a chat system socially, and
not looking what we got out of IRC and why would be a big
mistake. And only then is it about looking at which systems
satisfy all of our technical and social requirements alike.


Cheers,
Eike

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Christian Loosli]

Am Dienstag, 8. August 2017, 21:52:12 CEST schrieb Jonathan Riddell:
> On 8 August 2017 at 19:51, Christian Loosli  wrote:
> > Out of interest: what exactly does IRC lack? There are 4 things coming to
> > mind
> > for me, all of them with my personal opinion:
> Option for full names, 

IRC has the GECOS field, in most clients even called real name,  _exactly_ for 
that reason. 
Some people (e.g. me) use it for that: their real name. 
This is part of the protocol and has been for ages.

> photos of people,

Some clients, like kvirc, have support for that as well.
See below.

> timezone,

can be added as metadata if wanted, we (freenode) do support it.
(we support arbitrary string metadata, we just no longer display it by default 
because people thought it would be hilarious to do antivirus signatures or 
ASCII porn, not kidding) 

> e-mail addresses.

mandatory field on freenode, just hidden by default for privacy reasons, but 
can be configured to be shown for those who want to (I wouldn't recommend it, 
to be honest). 

So out of these: one that isn't supported out of the box on all clients, being 
a picture or avatar. Whether that makes sense in channels like #kde with ~500 
users is imo a bit debatable, and definitely a bandwith and ressource hog. 

> Looking at #kde-devel just now it says:
> <-- swati_27 (uid130066@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-abaollxcgicrxgwg)
> has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
> <-- nowrep (~david@kde/developer/drosca) has quit (Quit: Konversation
> terminated!)
> <-- stikonas (~gentoo@wesnoth/translator/stikonas) has quit (Quit:
> Konversation terminated!)
> <-- soee_ (~s...@bmi112.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) has quit (Quit:
> Konversation terminated!)
> --> soee (~s...@bmi112.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) has joined #kde-devel
> 
> Show that to most people and they'll just not want to know what it means

Good thing every single client coming to mind has a feature to hide these, 
including the official KDE client Konversation. 

http://wiki.xkcd.com/irc/hide_join_part_messages

I'm rather sure that most other protocols, at least Telegram most certainly 
does, do also show when someone joined or parted a group, mind. 
The part they might hide is the  nick!ident@host part. This is client 
dependent, some do and quite a lot of them can hide it. So I wouldn't really 
recommend switching to a completely different protocol due to "shows 
additional info when someone joins or leaves the group". 
 
> Jonathan

Christian

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Nicolás Alvarez]

2017-08-08 17:52 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell :
> On 8 August 2017 at 19:51, Christian Loosli  wrote:
>> Out of interest: what exactly does IRC lack? There are 4 things coming to 
>> mind
>> for me, all of them with my personal opinion:
>
> Option for full names, photos of people, timezone, e-mail addresses.
> Just a few of the useful and user friendly features I see looking at
> it now.
>
> Looking at #kde-devel just now it says:
> <-- swati_27 (uid130066@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-abaollxcgicrxgwg)
> has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
> <-- nowrep (~david@kde/developer/drosca) has quit (Quit: Konversation
> terminated!)
> <-- stikonas (~gentoo@wesnoth/translator/stikonas) has quit (Quit:
> Konversation terminated!)
> <-- soee_ (~s...@bmi112.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) has quit (Quit:
> Konversation terminated!)
> --> soee (~s...@bmi112.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) has joined #kde-devel
>
> Show that to most people and they'll just not want to know what it means

True, so the IRC client needs an option to hide the hostmask.

-- 
Nicolás

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Jonathan Riddell]

On 8 August 2017 at 21:46, Elvis Angelaccio  wrote:
> I'm not sure I get this argument. Do we have evidence that new contributors
> are scared by IRC? How is signin up on RocketChat/Telegram/whatever easier
> than using http://webchat.freenode.net/ ?

Teams including VDG, Promo and Sysadmins chose not to use IRC.  I show
IRC to my friends and they recoil in horror and ask what that nerdy
stuff is.

> Again, do we have evidence that Rocket chat is more used than IRC or other
> protocols? I'd be very surprised if that's the case.

It's not. The proposal is to change that by scrapping IRC amongst KDE.

Do we expect people to use Mutt for e-mail? Some of us still love it
and it has simplicity and low memory use on its side, but times change
and people prefer nicer experiences now. That is happening with
real-time communication whether we like it or not and we need to
consider moving with the times.

Jonathan

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Jonathan Riddell]

On 8 August 2017 at 19:51, Christian Loosli  wrote:
> Out of interest: what exactly does IRC lack?

Would be worth asking the teams who don't use IRC why they don't.
Sysadmins use Slack, VDG uses Hangouts, Promo uses Telegram... anyone
from those teams able to tell us why?

Jonathan

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Elvis Angelaccio]

On martedì 8 agosto 2017 20:31:13 CEST, Helio Chissini de Castro wrote:

I never heard before we have a Matrix enabled server.


We don't (and that's the beauty of Matrix!). The reference Matrix server 
(matrix.org) is bridged with many big IRC networks including freenode, 
which means it is possible to join every KDE IRC channel out of the box.

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Andrea Scarpino]

On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:08:14 PM CEST Luca Beltrame wrote:
> -1 as well. As Luigi said, matrix.org is a better replacement because
> the bridge is already up there. Also, it is federated, and FOSS.

Another -1 from me.

I use both KDE's BNC and Matrix. I started using Matrix as BNC, but I even 
have personal conversation there since Riot.im is nice for non-geek people 
too.

FYI: Matrix needs funds[1].

[1] https://matrix.org/blog/2017/07/07/a-call-to-arms-supporting-matrix/

-- 
Andrea

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Cristian Baldi]

There seems to be a native Qt/QML client for Matrix (
https://matrix.org/docs/projects/client/quaternion.html), it even seems to
be developed by a fellow KDE member, judging from the screenshoot.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Cristian Baldi 
wrote:

> Hey there,
>
> I mainly contribute to the WikiToLearn project and for some months we have
> been using Rocket.Chat (instead of Telegram and IRC which we used in the
> beginning).
>
> First of all let me tell you that it is very hard to migrate users from an
> existing communication service to a new service. Even if at WikiToLearn we
> officially moved to Rocket.Chat some users still use the old communications
> means daily (mostly for the offtopic channels but some users still write in
> the main/official/support channel too).
>
> Rocket.Chat still has a lot of issues (mostly in term of user interface
> and interaction, many little annoying things that make you hate the
> platform, unless you get used to it). It is getting better daily but there
> is still many work to do (just to give an insight they have 1.7k issues
> open on their bug tracker, many are help requests and duplicates but many
> other are proper bugs).
>
> The native client could be a solution to many of these UI problem but
> after talking with a few people that developed software based on
> Rocket.Chat (for example Davide Riva (which I am cc-ing, he will tell you
> more) the KDE student working on the Chat Bridge project) there are also a
> lot of issues with their API and inner functionalities (undocumented or
> wrongly documented features).
>
> Rocket.Chat does not have an official mobile client as of today, again
> Ruquola could solve this once it is compiled for Android. Right now the
> official way to use Rocket.Chat on mobile is to use some kind of wrapped
> WebView which does not work well (when I had that installed I did not
> receive notifications or received them randomly).
>
> As Jonathan said Rocket.Chat (but really, any modern messaging system)
> offers tons of features missing from IRC.
>
> Telegram works (outside the open source world) because it has great native
> clients, cool features and it is easy to use.
> I have not tried matrix but it looks promising.
> A few months ago we also tried Mattermost (similar to Rocket.Chat but it
> seems to have gotten much better).
> IRC gets the job done but it lacks the features that everyone is used to
> in 2017.
>
> I would suggest investigating all the alternatives and going with the one
> that works and feels better, offering the best native experience and having
> the most stable core.
>
> Cristian
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Luca Beltrame  wrote:
>
>> Il giorno Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:16:17 +0200
>> Luigi Toscano 
>> ha scritto:
>>
>> > So -1 for moving to Rocket.Chat.
>>
>> -1 as well. As Luigi said, matrix.org is a better replacement because
>> the bridge is already up there. Also, it is federated, and FOSS.
>>
>> --
>> Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
>> KDE Science supporter
>> GPG key ID: 6E1A4E79
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Jonathan Frederickson]

+1 for Matrix - given that it's bridged to Freenode, all you have to do
is give out Matrix links instead of linking people to IRC and they'll be
able to participate in the same community.

You might want to look into creating Matrix rooms manually if you want
more control over the room (the ability to add integrations, etc), but
even without that it's fine. (And it's an open protocol!)

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Luigi Toscano]

Il 08 agosto 2017 19:09:28 CEST, Eike Hein  ha scritto:
>
>
>On 08/09/2017 01:16 AM, Luigi Toscano wrote:> We have an alternative
>already working, which bridges IRC (freenode.net and
>> OFTC): matrix.org.
>> I don't know how many times I should repeat this, but many people are
>already 
>> using successfully (I monitor few channels, for example).
>> 
>> So -1 for moving to Rocket.Chat.
>
>
>It could make sense to promote Rocket.Chat over Telegram though (more
>free).

I'm personally for ditching Telegram in favor of really FLOSS (and sane) 
alternatives. That said, if it's bridged to IRC as it happens now, I don't care 
much as long as the accessibility through IRC (and now matrix) is well visible. 
I would never promote Telegram standalone.

Can rocket.chat be bridged too? If not, promoting it would create another 
island.

Ciao

-- 
Luigi

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Eike Hein]

On 08/09/2017 01:16 AM, Luigi Toscano wrote:> We have an alternative
already working, which bridges IRC (freenode.net and
> OFTC): matrix.org.
> I don't know how many times I should repeat this, but many people are already 
> using successfully (I monitor few channels, for example).
> 
> So -1 for moving to Rocket.Chat.


It could make sense to promote Rocket.Chat over Telegram though (more
free).

Cheers,
Eike

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Luca Beltrame]

Il giorno Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:16:17 +0200
Luigi Toscano 
ha scritto:

> So -1 for moving to Rocket.Chat.

-1 as well. As Luigi said, matrix.org is a better replacement because
the bridge is already up there. Also, it is federated, and FOSS.

-- 
Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
KDE Science supporter
GPG key ID: 6E1A4E79

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Elvis Angelaccio]

On martedì 8 agosto 2017 18:16:17 CEST, Luigi Toscano wrote:

On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 17:52:00 CEST Jonathan Riddell wrote:

Like all sensible open source communities we use IRC lots for real
time communication essential to making low bandwidth decisions in a
reasonable timeframe as well as socialising.

20 years ago IRC was cool but these days real-time communication in
the non-geek world long since moved other places such as WhatsApp, ...


We have an alternative already working, which bridges IRC (freenode.net and 
OFTC): matrix.org.
I don't know how many times I should repeat this, but many 
people are already 
using successfully (I monitor few channels, for example).


So -1 for moving to Rocket.Chat.


I also want to stress that using matrix.org requires literally zero changes 
to the current infrastructure (unlike the other chat apps).


Anyone can switch now: https://community.kde.org/Matrix

Riot.im works very well from smartphones. It should be mentioned that 
native desktop clients are still not 100% ready (Riot.im is the only one 
with proper end-to-end encryption), but for KDE-related public chats they 
are good enough (I use Quaternion).


Cheers,
Elvis

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Christian Loosli]

Hi list, 

first of all a disclaimer: 

As someone heavily involved with IRC (I am freenode staff) I am of course 
slightly biased. 

However: various communities I am in, including freenode, frequently has a 
look as alternative protocols. They come and, compared to IRC, they also go.
(https://xkcd.com/1782/) 

There are various good reasons in my opinion to not move:

First of all: FOSS is not only KDE. Quite a lot of us are in various 
communities, and a lot of them still reside on IRC. So adding another protocol 
and another client just increases the amount of things you need to have open 
and to have an eye on. Yes, there are bridges, recently even a KDE project 
(brooklyn), but all of them I have seen so far get various things wrong and 
are not as stable as IRC is. 

And there we come to the technical side: IRC is super lightweight. Other 
protocols and their clients eat tons of memory, basically "I am in 6 slack 
channels. 1.5GB RAM consumed by the desktop app. In 100+ IRC channels. 25MB 
consumed by irssi. The future is rubbish." from https://twitter.com/popey/
status/793399003463516160

I can also have IRC run on my server and connect from anywhere to it just via 
SSH. I can even run it on a raspberry pi or a free amazon AWS instance. 

So despite all these fancy features the new protocols and clients like slack, 
rocket, Telegram and whatnot offer: they do come at a price. 
With IRC we have a lightweight, well established protcol that works everywhere 
and we have well established communities. 

Switching would not help preventing the community from fragmenting. The 
opposite would happen, it would fragment the community even more, with 
questionable benefits and high prices on a resource end. I highly recommend not 
to. 

Kind regards, 

Christian  (Fuchs on freenode) 

PS: if proprietary is an issue, which indeed it should be: with Mattermost 
there is a free, slack compatible thing, and Telegram is not terribly 
proprietary, neither the client(s) nor the protocol. I obviously still prefer 
IRC, just pointing out. 

Am Dienstag, 8. August 2017, 16:52:00 CEST schrieb Jonathan Riddell:
> Like all sensible open source communities we use IRC lots for real
> time communication essential to making low bandwidth decisions in a
> reasonable timeframe as well as socialising.
> 
> 20 years ago IRC was cool but these days real-time communication in
> the non-geek world long since moved other places such as WhatsApp,
> Facebook Messenger which are infinately more user friendly than IRC.
> In the geek-world it has moved to Slack and Telegram. So KDE finds
> itself spread between three real time communication methods with IRC
> still the strongest but many new people reluctant to use it as scary
> and unfamiliar while Slack and Telegram smell of being proprietary and
> lacking some of the free-form nature of IRC.
> 
> So my radical proposal for today is to consider moving all our
> real-time communications wholesale to Rocket.Chat. Like Slack it takes
> much of it's basic setup from IRC with #channels that anyone can set
> up. Unlike Slack it's all free software and we can run our own
> servers.  Like Telegram it works on phones fine. Unlike IRC it
> supports media files and friendly user names.
> 
> It has a native desktop client and we have a KDE one in progress with
> Ruqola. https://rocket.chat/
> 
> I setup up a temporary server, do come along and say hi to evaluate it.
> http://ec2-34-203-38-236.compute-1.amazonaws.com:3000/
> 
> I'm aware this will probably end up as a case of XCKD standards
> https://xkcd.com/927/ but I thought it worth a shot.  We have
> difficulty attracting new contributors and our community is
> fragmenting because of the dominance of IRC so worth considering
> alternatives.
> 
> Jonathan

Re: radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Luigi Toscano]

On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 17:52:00 CEST Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> Like all sensible open source communities we use IRC lots for real
> time communication essential to making low bandwidth decisions in a
> reasonable timeframe as well as socialising.
> 
> 20 years ago IRC was cool but these days real-time communication in
> the non-geek world long since moved other places such as WhatsApp,
> Facebook Messenger which are infinately more user friendly than IRC.
> In the geek-world it has moved to Slack and Telegram. So KDE finds
> itself spread between three real time communication methods with IRC
> still the strongest but many new people reluctant to use it as scary
> and unfamiliar while Slack and Telegram smell of being proprietary and
> lacking some of the free-form nature of IRC.
> 
> So my radical proposal for today is to consider moving all our
> real-time communications wholesale to Rocket.Chat. Like Slack it takes
> much of it's basic setup from IRC with #channels that anyone can set
> up. Unlike Slack it's all free software and we can run our own
> servers.  Like Telegram it works on phones fine. Unlike IRC it
> supports media files and friendly user names.

We have an alternative already working, which bridges IRC (freenode.net and 
OFTC): matrix.org.
I don't know how many times I should repeat this, but many people are already 
using successfully (I monitor few channels, for example).

So -1 for moving to Rocket.Chat.

-- 
Luigi