For some reason I have not actually received this message, so I've copied it from the mailing list archive and hopefully threaded it properly.
> I'll keep this as short as possible to focus on which seems to be the > crux of the issue: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Steve Dougherty <steve at asksteved.com> > wrote: >> >> This sounds good, and would work well if it was what happened. The mail >> I responded to had a reasonable first paragraph discussing the idea at >> hand, and then started accusations about Arne as a person. >> > > The mail you responded to was the one that began "Is there any > technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a Tor user, or > even an explanation of how this could occur?" - is that correct? Yes. This one: https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2016-May/039015.html > If so, please tell me exactly where the accusations are about Arne as > a person, because I've reread that email a few times and again just > now, and I just don't see it. My criticism is of his arguments, not > him as a person. Okay. Here's my interpretation of the tone and content of what you wrote: On 05/25/2016 08:49 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de> > wrote: >> >> Core technical reasons: >> >> - It excludes those of our users who assume (not unreasonably) that >> Google might de-anonymize them. >> > > Is there any technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a > Tor user, or even an explanation of how this could occur? The Google > Docs client code can be easily examined, so if Google were somehow > doing this, wouldn't it be easy to see? This addresses the idea at hand, but does put words in Arne's mouth as he did not mention Tor here. > In reality there is nothing other than your dislike of Google behind > this concern. You're welcome to dislike Google if you wish, but you > will need to make a better argument if you expect everyone else to > adapt to your personal view, which is what you seem to be asking for. This reads into Arne's motivations as a person for having the idea. > >> - It also excludes those who do not run Tor but only use Freenet for >> anonymous communication. >> > > And how can such people anonymously use PiratePad, which is your > preferred choice? It has exactly the same issue. > > >> - It does not work without Javascript. Many of our users disable >> Javascript, especially on Tor. >> > > Same for PiratePad, which is the choice you have advocated. > > >> - People who follow the mailing list cannot follow the discussion and >> development of the document. This makes the work intransparent for >> most of our community. >> > > PiratePad also suffers from this problem, as would any practical > solution that met our needs. > > >> - It is a non-free platform, so this workflow could be cut at any >> time. > > In the extremely unlikely event that Google suddenly shuts down Google > Docs, then it will not be difficult to switch to another solution. > > These are all very weak arguments. This is an argumentative thing to say. I think it's already clear that you find these arguments weak. >> Personal reason: >> >> When I told Ian about my reservations against using Google Docs, >> essentially the reasons I gave here, the discussion got personal. I >> won’t go into details here, but it hurt. > > >> If it had not been for that, I would have followed a community >> decision about Google Docs, just like I did about using Github. >> However this crossed the point of being about being reasonable. >> That’s why my decision not to use Google Docs here is final. >> > > So you admit that your position here is not governed by technical > arguments (a good thing, since those were not convincing), but rather > by animosity towards me due to a perceived insult. I'm glad you made > that clear to everyone. This reads into Arne's motivations as a person, reiterates your already very clear position that his arguments did not convince you, and dismisses his feelings. > You have contributed very valuably to the project over the past few > years Arne, and I sincerely hope that you continue to do-so, there > really is no reason not to. "no reason not to" dismisses Arne's decision. > But in this matter you aren't behaving constructively, and the project > should not accede to unreasonable demands which you've just admitted > are driven by personal animus towards me. This also accuses Arne. He could have silently not participated for these reasons, and it would not have been constructive to the Google Doc either. While he does reiterate his reasons to not use Google Docs, I do not perceive his message as a demand to use something else. I think his primary intent was to protest his treatment: "But I will not let myself be insulted for disagreeing with his assessment of implementation details of the best way forward. I bring this here, because I am not the first who is angry about something similar. It is not how I want to work." > The purpose of this project is to ensure that people have the freedom > to communicate without fear of reprisal or censorship. I don't see > how any of this serves that purpose. This dismisses bringing up objections to conduct. > Ian.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
