radical proposal: move IRC to Rocket.Chat

[Eike Hein]

On August 11, 2017 4:22:04 AM GMT+09:00, Thomas Pfeiffer <thomas.pfeiffer at 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 to get
>rid of 
>IRC. I chimed in because I got the impression from some of the replies
>that 
>there would be no need to use anything other than IRC, because it has 
>everything we need.
>I still strongly disagree with that.

I'm very much frustrated by the use of "protocols". 

Rocket.Chat for example is not a protocol. There's no spec for servers and clients to follow, no governance model for that spec, no stability guarantees. It's entirely implementation-defined. Which is meh.

Of the contenders discussed so far, Matrix is a protocol. And it even supports federation properly. It doesn't create walled gardens.

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