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" <hein at kde.org> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20170811/69fe547c/attachment.htm>