On 11/02/2015 08:02 AM, Bob Ham wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 06:28 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> On 11/02/2015 06:26 AM, Steve Dougherty wrote: >>> On 11/02/2015 06:21 AM, Bob Ham wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 05:54 -0500, Steve Dougherty wrote: >>>>> one >>>>> may observe that we have not written up protocol documentation, making >>>>> that our current strategy. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean; what are you referring to with the word >>>> "that"? What is your current strategy? >>> >>> The current strategy is to not document things. I think calling it a >>> strategy is a stretch because a strategy requires coordination and >>> planning. No one has wanted to document the protocol, so it hasn't >>> gotten documented. >> >> Er, that's poor phrasing. No one has wanted to document the protocol >> enough to document it themselves. I'm not being insightful here - it >> hasn't happened, so our "strategy" is to not do it. > > You're right, that's not a strategy. > > Regardless, I think there's some confusion here. I'm not talking about > a strategy for creating a file containing information about the Freenet > protocol. What I'm talking about a strategy for getting the protocol to > a point where it's worth other people implementing it and then writing > high quality documentation that allows them to do so, possibly even > publishing an RFC describing it. > > It seems that nobody here believes that in five years' time Freenet > developers will be publishing an RFC. Instead, people seem to be > focussed on updating the website, worrying about user interface niggles > and fretting over whether users can install new versions of Fred easily > enough. > > I'm talking about a strategy for getting the project to a point where it > can actually have meaningful impact on the world. There doesn't seem to > be any direction in the project. There's some software and some kind of > community around it but there seems to be no vision of how to move > forward to a point where the project contributes to something wider. > > What is the priority of the project, is it to ensure that as many > Windows users as possible have a little Freenet icon in their status > tray? Or is it to play a role in creating a world where nobody really > uses Windows because they recognise how massive a threat it is to their > privacy and security? At the moment the priority seems to be the former > and there seems to be no idea about how to approach the latter (a > "strategy").
I feel like you're belitting what work we do because we have not performed it in accordance with an overarching strategy. While you are correct that working toward a larger vision can be a very good thing, I'm hurt by that. I do have ideas for workflows I'd like to see Freenet support, and can go into them if you'd consider that enough to be a strategy. Do you have any suggestions to make?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
