radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Christian Loosli]

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. 

> 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? 

> 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.

> 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. 

> Puzzled,
> Thomas

Same, 

Christian