Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian Clarke]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Florent Daigniere <
nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 10:20 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > It's a little hypocritical for you to complain about slow progress in
> > a process while you're actively trying to sabotage it.
> >
>
> I have submitted my votes/estimates before the deadline and in good
> faith. You are assuming malice where there is none...


Ok, I'm sorry.


> I want that "process" to be over, so that we can move forward.
>

Xor has been working on it, there have been delays mostly because I have
been incredibly busy with my day-job and Xor has been waiting on answers
from me about how to handle various issues (like the wildly divergent time
estimates I mentioned).

I agree it's not ideal, but at least Xor is doing the work to push the
process forward.  I do not want to be a bottleneck here, but it seems that
I am, even with Xor doing most of the work.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 10:20 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Florent Daigniere  roject.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 17:12 +0200, Florent Daigniere wrote:
> > > I'm glad it is. It's been three months and it's only started
> > making
> > > sign of progress when I've sent my email (last Tuesday).
> > 
> > Okay, so we are now 3 month later (it's been 6 months that the
> > process
> > has started). What has changed? Have we made any progress? Are we
> > any
> > closer to a roadmap?
> 
> xor is working on it, we might be further along if you hadn't abused
> the time estimates in an effort to de-prioritize tasks you didn't like
> (apparently in one case there is a 19200% difference between your
> estimate for a task and Matthew's).
> 

That just means that we have widely different interpretations of what
the task entails... and that it needs refining/clarification.

> It's a little hypocritical for you to complain about slow progress in
> a process while you're actively trying to sabotage it.
> 

I have submitted my votes/estimates before the deadline and in good
faith. You are assuming malice where there is none... If I wanted to
sabotage the vote, I had way more powerful tools to do so (like shutting
down this mailing list).

I want that "process" to be over, so that we can move forward.

Florent

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian Clarke]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Florent Daigniere <
nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 17:12 +0200, Florent Daigniere wrote:
> > I'm glad it is. It's been three months and it's only started making
> > sign of progress when I've sent my email (last Tuesday).
>
> Okay, so we are now 3 month later (it's been 6 months that the process
> has started). What has changed? Have we made any progress? Are we any
> closer to a roadmap?
>

xor is working on it, we might be further along if you hadn't abused the
time estimates in an effort to de-prioritize tasks you didn't like
(apparently in one case there is a 19200% difference between your estimate
for a task and Matthew's).

It's a little hypocritical for you to complain about slow progress in a
process while you're actively trying to sabotage it.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 17:12 +0200, Florent Daigniere wrote:
> > What's wrong is not just the current
> > funding allocation fiasco (who will ever consider sponsoring us, now
> > that we've shown that we don't even know what to do with the money
> we have?).
> > 
> > We're in the midst of a process to do exactly that, a process which
> > is now moving forward.
> > 
> 
> I'm glad it is. It's been three months and it's only started making
> sign of progress when I've sent my email (last Tuesday).

Okay, so we are now 3 month later (it's been 6 months that the process
has started). What has changed? Have we made any progress? Are we any
closer to a roadmap?

Florent

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 22:31 -0400, Steve Dougherty wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 04:00 PM, Florent Daigniere wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:28 +, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > 
> > > Why don't you set a date since you're the one that would do it?
> > 
> > 
> > I have created https://github.com/freenet/wiki/wiki ... and will
> > remove the old wikis as soon as we deploy the new website design.
> 
> Huh? Why? 

Because that's what the boss said we should do... and it took me 30s.

> There's a bunch of documentation on the wikis already - what's
> the reasoning for
> 
> 1. changing wiki platforms (making administration GitHub's problem
> and responsibility?)

Ian has used another argument: github's syntax is trendier.

But yes, you have made my points.

> 2. not transitioning existing documentation (licensing?)

I have made it clear that I don't have the will-power to do
it. mrsteveman1 apparently does, so a lot of progress has been made in
that area already, thanks to his efforts.

I did mention to Ian that moving the wiki to another engine is yet-
another-recurring thread (just like "the website design sucks"), where
in last iteration concerns were raised regarding the licensing of some
of the content. Apparently no one cares, so why should I?

> This seems like discarding lots of work - especially about FCP and
> GSoC projects.
> 

It doesn't have to be; help with the migration if you care.

Florent

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Steve Dougherty]

On 08/12/2016 04:00 PM, Florent Daigniere wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:28 +, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> Why don't you set a date since you're the one that would do it?
> 
> 
> I have created https://github.com/freenet/wiki/wiki ... and will remove
> the old wikis as soon as we deploy the new website design.

Huh? Why? There's a bunch of documentation on the wikis already - what's
the reasoning for

1. changing wiki platforms (making administration GitHub's problem and
responsibility?)
2. not transitioning existing documentation (licensing?)

This seems like discarding lots of work - especially about FCP and GSoC
projects.

>> Can you clarify what you are suggesting?
>>
>> I certainly don't think we should be constrained in any way by some
>> kind of hoarder-like desire to never throw anything away, especially
>> when everything is already archived by a 3rd party.
>>  
> 
> Great; may I suggest that we get rid of
> https://archives.freenetproject.org/ as well as all the old builds on 
> https://downloads.freenetproject.org/ too while we're at it?

That I would be okay with, but I'd ask that we have a published deadline
two weeks or so from its announcement so those who care can
mirror/archive before it goes offline.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Steve Dougherty]

On 08/11/2016 12:01 PM, Dan Roberts wrote:
> All else being equal, I'm all for cutting costs, but things don't appear
> equal. Migrating the wiki to Github could be a massive undertaking. I
> participated in exactly this migration with the Namecoin project and it was
> a royal pain. Github's mediawiki syntax support was incomplete at the time,
> and pandoc failed to completely translate the pages, leaving heaps of
> manual work for us, even in Namecoin's small wiki.
> 
> How big is the maintenance burden? How much are these costs? When funds
> were nearly depleted, I recall someone mentioned server costs were low
> enough that we could operate effectively indefinitely on the remaining ~3k.
> If true, this sounds like a ton of work to increase our dependency and
> trust on/of third parties.
> 
> I am also quite opposed to further centralizing in Github, but that is
> mostly offset by the security concerns regarding running our own mediawiki.

Agreed.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 22:12 +0200, Bert Massop wrote:
> Op 12 aug. 2016 22:00 schreef "Florent Daigniere" <
> nextg...@freenetproject.org>:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:28 +, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > 
> > > Why don't you set a date since you're the one that would do it?
> > 
> > 
> > I have created https://github.com/freenet/wiki/wiki ... and will
> > remove
> > the old wikis as soon as we deploy the new website design.
> 
> “This repository is empty." ← is that intentional?
> 

Yes. Feel free to add content; everyone has access.

Florent

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Bert Massop]

Op 12 aug. 2016 22:00 schreef "Florent Daigniere" <
nextg...@freenetproject.org>:
>
> On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:28 +, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > Why don't you set a date since you're the one that would do it?
>
>
> I have created https://github.com/freenet/wiki/wiki ... and will remove
> the old wikis as soon as we deploy the new website design.

“This repository is empty." ← is that intentional?

>
> > Can you clarify what you are suggesting?
> >
> > I certainly don't think we should be constrained in any way by some
> > kind of hoarder-like desire to never throw anything away, especially
> > when everything is already archived by a 3rd party.
> >
>
> Great; may I suggest that we get rid of
> https://archives.freenetproject.org/ as well as all the old builds on
> https://downloads.freenetproject.org/ too while we're at it?

I'm all for it. Old versions won't connect without updating anyways.

>
> Florent
>
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:28 +, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Why don't you set a date since you're the one that would do it?


I have created https://github.com/freenet/wiki/wiki ... and will remove
the old wikis as soon as we deploy the new website design.

> Can you clarify what you are suggesting?
> 
> I certainly don't think we should be constrained in any way by some
> kind of hoarder-like desire to never throw anything away, especially
> when everything is already archived by a 3rd party.
> 

Great; may I suggest that we get rid of
https://archives.freenetproject.org/ as well as all the old builds on 
https://downloads.freenetproject.org/ too while we're at it?

Florent


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Dan Roberts]

All else being equal, I'm all for cutting costs, but things don't appear
equal. Migrating the wiki to Github could be a massive undertaking. I
participated in exactly this migration with the Namecoin project and it was
a royal pain. Github's mediawiki syntax support was incomplete at the time,
and pandoc failed to completely translate the pages, leaving heaps of
manual work for us, even in Namecoin's small wiki.

How big is the maintenance burden? How much are these costs? When funds
were nearly depleted, I recall someone mentioned server costs were low
enough that we could operate effectively indefinitely on the remaining ~3k.
If true, this sounds like a ton of work to increase our dependency and
trust on/of third parties.

I am also quite opposed to further centralizing in Github, but that is
mostly offset by the security concerns regarding running our own mediawiki.

Thanks,
Dan

On Aug 11, 2016 7:28 AM, "Ian Clarke"  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 9:50 AM, Florent Daigniere
> nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> Two points:
>
>
>
>
> 1) The benefits you are talking about (scalability, security), will
>
> only exist if we get rid of the old instances of the wiki. 7y+ in the
>
> previous migration we are still running the "old-old" wiki.
>
> https://old-wiki.freenetproject.org/HomePage
>
>
>
>
> Are you suggesting that we finally get rid of them (both old and
>
> current wikis)?
>
>
> Yes, we shouldn't be operating our own servers when others are willing to
> do it
> for free. Also, they already appear to be archived:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20150926002329/https://old-
> wiki.freenetproject.org/HomePageCan we set a date in stone today as of
> when that will
>
>
> happen?
>
>
> Why don't you set a date since you're the one that would do it?
> 2) This is a re-hash of a discussion we had 7 years ago. At the time,
>
>
> one of the main point that was raised is that we can *not* migrate the
>
> content due to unclear licensing... and we can't get rid of it because
>
> "we shouldn't throw away contributions".
>
>
>
>
> Can you clarify what you are suggesting?
>
>
> I certainly don't think we should be constrained in any way by some kind of
> hoarder-like desire to never throw anything away, especially when
> everything is
> already archived by a 3rd party.
>
>
> Ian.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 9:50 AM, Florent Daigniere
> nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 14:25 +, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 3:37 AM, Florent Daigniere
>
> > nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
>
> > > It's not like if there was no history here...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm really not clear on what point you're trying to make…
>
> > Ian.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> Two points:
>
>
>
>
> 1) The benefits you are talking about (scalability, security), will
>
> only exist if we get rid of the old instances of the wiki. 7y+ in the
>
> previous migration we are still running the "old-old" wiki.
>
> https://old-wiki.freenetproject.org/HomePage
>
>
>
>
> Are you suggesting that we finally get rid of them (both old and
>
> current wikis)? Can we set a date in stone today as of when that will
>
> happen?
>
>
>
>
> 2) This is a re-hash of a discussion we had 7 years ago. At the time,
>
> one of the main point that was raised is that we can *not* migrate the
>
> content due to unclear licensing... and we can't get rid of it because
>
> "we shouldn't throw away contributions".
>
>
>
>
> Can you clarify what you are suggesting?
>
>
>
>
> Ticking the box to enable the wiki on github is a 30s job, so is
>
> deleting the two wiki instances... Migrating the content over isn't.
>
>
>
>
> Florent___
>
> Devl mailing list
>
> Devl@freenetproject.org
>
> https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
>
>
> -- Ian Clarke Stacks - The AI CFO for your personal finances
> http://trystacks.com/
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl@freenetproject.org
> https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian Clarke]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 9:50 AM, Florent Daigniere nextg...@freenetproject.org 
wrote:
Two points:




1) The benefits you are talking about (scalability, security), will

only exist if we get rid of the old instances of the wiki. 7y+ in the

previous migration we are still running the "old-old" wiki.

https://old-wiki.freenetproject.org/HomePage




Are you suggesting that we finally get rid of them (both old and

current wikis)?


Yes, we shouldn't be operating our own servers when others are willing to do it
for free. Also, they already appear to be archived:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150926002329/https://old-wiki.freenetproject.org/HomePageCan
 we set a date in stone today as of when that will


happen?


Why don't you set a date since you're the one that would do it?
2) This is a re-hash of a discussion we had 7 years ago. At the time,


one of the main point that was raised is that we can *not* migrate the

content due to unclear licensing... and we can't get rid of it because

"we shouldn't throw away contributions".




Can you clarify what you are suggesting?


I certainly don't think we should be constrained in any way by some kind of
hoarder-like desire to never throw anything away, especially when everything is
already archived by a 3rd party.


Ian.





On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 9:50 AM, Florent Daigniere nextg...@freenetproject.org 
wrote:
On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 14:25 +, Ian Clarke wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 3:37 AM, Florent Daigniere

> nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:

> > It's not like if there was no history here...

>

>

> I'm really not clear on what point you're trying to make…

> Ian.

>




Two points:




1) The benefits you are talking about (scalability, security), will

only exist if we get rid of the old instances of the wiki. 7y+ in the

previous migration we are still running the "old-old" wiki.

https://old-wiki.freenetproject.org/HomePage




Are you suggesting that we finally get rid of them (both old and

current wikis)? Can we set a date in stone today as of when that will

happen?




2) This is a re-hash of a discussion we had 7 years ago. At the time,

one of the main point that was raised is that we can *not* migrate the

content due to unclear licensing... and we can't get rid of it because

"we shouldn't throw away contributions".




Can you clarify what you are suggesting?




Ticking the box to enable the wiki on github is a 30s job, so is

deleting the two wiki instances... Migrating the content over isn't.




Florent___

Devl mailing list

Devl@freenetproject.org

https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl



-- Ian Clarke Stacks - The AI CFO for your personal finances 
http://trystacks.com/
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 14:25 +, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 3:37 AM, Florent Daigniere
> nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> > It's not like if there was no history here...
> 
> 
> I'm really not clear on what point you're trying to make…
> Ian.
> 

Two points:

1) The benefits you are talking about (scalability, security), will
only exist if we get rid of the old instances of the wiki. 7y+ in the
previous migration we are still running the "old-old" wiki.
https://old-wiki.freenetproject.org/HomePage

Are you suggesting that we finally get rid of them (both old and
current wikis)? Can we set a date in stone today as of when that will
happen?

2) This is a re-hash of a discussion we had 7 years ago. At the time,
one of the main point that was raised is that we can *not* migrate the
content due to unclear licensing... and we can't get rid of it because
"we shouldn't throw away contributions".

Can you clarify what you are suggesting?

Ticking the box to enable the wiki on github is a 30s job, so is
deleting the two wiki instances... Migrating the content over isn't.

Florent

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian Clarke]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 3:37 AM, Florent Daigniere nextg...@freenetproject.org 
wrote:
> has a history of delivering on his or her pledges, transitioning the

> wiki is a dumb idea.

> I don't mind if the existing wiki stays around,




I do. Because that will only increase the sysadmin's load.




I'm all for us getting out of the business of administering our own servers,
there is no reason for it except perhaps if we operate a seednode.


> however the important pages should be moved to a scalable solution
> that doesn't depend on us for devops.

> And you're smoking crack if you think that the MediaWiki syntax is

> more popular

> than Markdown, perhaps 10 years ago, definitely not today.




It's not like if there was no history here...


I'm really not clear on what point you're trying to make…
Ian.
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 00:02 +, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 5:53 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de
> wrote:As long as there is no one who pledges to transition the whole
> wiki and
> 
> has a history of delivering on his or her pledges, transitioning the
> wiki is a dumb idea.
> I don't mind if the existing wiki stays around,

I do. Because that will only increase the sysadmin's load.

>  however the important pages should be moved to a scalable solution
> that doesn't depend on us for devops.
> And you're smoking crack if you think that the MediaWiki syntax is
> more popular
> than Markdown, perhaps 10 years ago, definitely not today.

It's not like if there was no history here...

https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2010-October/034875.html

https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2010-January/033869.html

https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2010-January/033880.html
I love the part where you wrote: "the obvious thing would be to host it
on Emu"

https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2009-October/033605.html
And when I get ignored for suggesting "What about switching everything
back to SF?"

https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2009-June/032436.html
It's not like if you didn't support mediawiki at the time ^ That was
not 10y ago.

https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2009-May/032334.html

https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2009-April/031571.html
And years after I'm still one of those keeping the lights on.
Maybe I'm the fool after all.

>  Almost nobody uses
> MediaWiki except for Wikipedia, and they use it because they're stuck
> with it,
> since it would be impractical to migrate at this point.
> Ian.
> 

We are already in that situation too. The license of the wiki-content
has not been clarified since last migration... Just like the website,
if you want to move on, don't call it a migration. The last thing we
need is three wiki instances!

Florent
PS: it would be great if this thread remained on topic

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Dean Shannon]

fwiw github appears to support markdown mediawiki and a few others:
https://github.com/github/markup

On 10/08/16 11:00, Dean Shannon wrote:
> My 2 cents...
> 
> The wiki is definitely one of the most important places to find
> information in any project. I think it would be a major boost to the
> freenet project to have a nice functional wiki.
> 
> On 10/08/16 08:53, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>>
>> Ian writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
>>> wrote:

 I don’t think that’s a fair assessment — Mediawiki syntax is pretty
 decent and nicely full-featured — and I don’t think that markup matters
 that much in this. Markdown is nice, but the difference isn’t that big
 (I used to think different but changed my stance with experience).

 Transitioning simply is a lot of very boring work, and there are lots of
 corner cases which don’t work by default.
>>>
>>> I acknowledge that it might not be easy, but you acknowledge that we didn't
>>> even complete the last wiki migration.  Github is easy to use, and its wiki
>>> syntax is very familiar to people.  I think that will be a better place for
>>> us to be ultimately.  I really dislike the idea of us running our own web
>>> servers, we're just begging to be hacked or to hit a scalability wall.
>>>
> 
> I agree with ian here, github is familiar to everyone at the project and
> has a fairly easy workflow. I think a project which is occasionally
> broke should avoid any extra cost eg hosting as much as possible. It
> should be noted that I do not claim to an expert in any wiki languages
> so the technical debate is out of my scope.
> 
>>> If volunteers are unwilling to do it, then we could pick the most important
>>> pages and pay someone to migrate them.  People competent in that kind of
>>> work can be hired quite cheaply.
>>
>> If we only needed to port a few "most important pages", transitioning
>> wouldn’t be an issue. But we have a wiki. That’s not some kind of PR
>> page but a knowledge base with a lot of information about many different
>> parts of Freenet.
>>
>> Also Mediawiki syntax is just as familiar to people as Markdown — rather
>> more so.
>>
>> I don’t know what is there to acknowledge from my side about not
>> completing the last transition. I put it up, and it would be strange if
>> I were to acknowledge my own argument.
>>
>> To say more clearly why it’s an argument: It still happens from time to
>> time that information which was in the old wiki is needed but not
>> available in the new wiki. Every incomplete transition throws away
>> information our users and potential developers need. If there’s no one
>> who pledges to transition the whole wiki — and has a history of
>> delivering on his or her pledges — then a transition to a new wiki is a
>> recipe for failure. We’d either lose important information or we’d have
>> two Wikis to maintain.
>>
>> That’s it. I gave my arguments. I won’t argument this further. We’re
>> moving in circles and different from the website where I said "not now"
>> and not "we should not", I won’t start seeing a wiki transition as
>> useful just because arguments are repeated.
>>
>> As long as there is no one who pledges to transition the whole wiki and
>> has a history of delivering on his or her pledges, transitioning the wiki
>> is a dumb idea.
>>
> 
> Ive wanted to help with the wiki for a while now but hit a technical
> wall once I started considering it and read the notes that a copy/paste
> transition was not ideal. I did not understand freenet internals well
> enough to migrate it properly.
> 
> I still would like to help but I do not have time for a full transition
> (I work full time and am at uni part time). I can see Arnes argument
> that 3 partial transitions obviously makes it harder for anybody to find
> anything.
> 
> Maybe we could set up a small team of volunteers to migrate it? Would
> anyone be keen? I think a copy/paste initial transition would be the
> only way to get started ie theres just too much info and it appears that
> only toad actually understands it all
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Dean (rdrofthestorm on github)
> 
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Dean Shannon]

My 2 cents...

The wiki is definitely one of the most important places to find
information in any project. I think it would be a major boost to the
freenet project to have a nice functional wiki.

On 10/08/16 08:53, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> 
> Ian writes:
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don’t think that’s a fair assessment — Mediawiki syntax is pretty
>>> decent and nicely full-featured — and I don’t think that markup matters
>>> that much in this. Markdown is nice, but the difference isn’t that big
>>> (I used to think different but changed my stance with experience).
>>>
>>> Transitioning simply is a lot of very boring work, and there are lots of
>>> corner cases which don’t work by default.
>>
>> I acknowledge that it might not be easy, but you acknowledge that we didn't
>> even complete the last wiki migration.  Github is easy to use, and its wiki
>> syntax is very familiar to people.  I think that will be a better place for
>> us to be ultimately.  I really dislike the idea of us running our own web
>> servers, we're just begging to be hacked or to hit a scalability wall.
>>

I agree with ian here, github is familiar to everyone at the project and
has a fairly easy workflow. I think a project which is occasionally
broke should avoid any extra cost eg hosting as much as possible. It
should be noted that I do not claim to an expert in any wiki languages
so the technical debate is out of my scope.

>> If volunteers are unwilling to do it, then we could pick the most important
>> pages and pay someone to migrate them.  People competent in that kind of
>> work can be hired quite cheaply.
> 
> If we only needed to port a few "most important pages", transitioning
> wouldn’t be an issue. But we have a wiki. That’s not some kind of PR
> page but a knowledge base with a lot of information about many different
> parts of Freenet.
> 
> Also Mediawiki syntax is just as familiar to people as Markdown — rather
> more so.
> 
> I don’t know what is there to acknowledge from my side about not
> completing the last transition. I put it up, and it would be strange if
> I were to acknowledge my own argument.
> 
> To say more clearly why it’s an argument: It still happens from time to
> time that information which was in the old wiki is needed but not
> available in the new wiki. Every incomplete transition throws away
> information our users and potential developers need. If there’s no one
> who pledges to transition the whole wiki — and has a history of
> delivering on his or her pledges — then a transition to a new wiki is a
> recipe for failure. We’d either lose important information or we’d have
> two Wikis to maintain.
> 
> That’s it. I gave my arguments. I won’t argument this further. We’re
> moving in circles and different from the website where I said "not now"
> and not "we should not", I won’t start seeing a wiki transition as
> useful just because arguments are repeated.
> 
> As long as there is no one who pledges to transition the whole wiki and
> has a history of delivering on his or her pledges, transitioning the wiki
> is a dumb idea.
> 

Ive wanted to help with the wiki for a while now but hit a technical
wall once I started considering it and read the notes that a copy/paste
transition was not ideal. I did not understand freenet internals well
enough to migrate it properly.

I still would like to help but I do not have time for a full transition
(I work full time and am at uni part time). I can see Arnes argument
that 3 partial transitions obviously makes it harder for anybody to find
anything.

Maybe we could set up a small team of volunteers to migrate it? Would
anyone be keen? I think a copy/paste initial transition would be the
only way to get started ie theres just too much info and it appears that
only toad actually understands it all

Thoughts?

Dean (rdrofthestorm on github)
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian Clarke]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 5:53 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de wrote:As 
long as there is no one who pledges to transition the whole wiki and

has a history of delivering on his or her pledges, transitioning the wiki

is a dumb idea.
I don't mind if the existing wiki stays around, however the important pages
should be moved to a scalable solution that doesn't depend on us for devops.
And you're smoking crack if you think that the MediaWiki syntax is more popular
than Markdown, perhaps 10 years ago, definitely not today. Almost nobody uses
MediaWiki except for Wikipedia, and they use it because they're stuck with it,
since it would be impractical to migrate at this point.
Ian.
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Ian writes:

> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
> wrote:
>>
>> I don’t think that’s a fair assessment — Mediawiki syntax is pretty
>> decent and nicely full-featured — and I don’t think that markup matters
>> that much in this. Markdown is nice, but the difference isn’t that big
>> (I used to think different but changed my stance with experience).
>>
>> Transitioning simply is a lot of very boring work, and there are lots of
>> corner cases which don’t work by default.
>
> I acknowledge that it might not be easy, but you acknowledge that we didn't
> even complete the last wiki migration.  Github is easy to use, and its wiki
> syntax is very familiar to people.  I think that will be a better place for
> us to be ultimately.  I really dislike the idea of us running our own web
> servers, we're just begging to be hacked or to hit a scalability wall.
>
> If volunteers are unwilling to do it, then we could pick the most important
> pages and pay someone to migrate them.  People competent in that kind of
> work can be hired quite cheaply.

If we only needed to port a few "most important pages", transitioning
wouldn’t be an issue. But we have a wiki. That’s not some kind of PR
page but a knowledge base with a lot of information about many different
parts of Freenet.

Also Mediawiki syntax is just as familiar to people as Markdown — rather
more so.

I don’t know what is there to acknowledge from my side about not
completing the last transition. I put it up, and it would be strange if
I were to acknowledge my own argument.

To say more clearly why it’s an argument: It still happens from time to
time that information which was in the old wiki is needed but not
available in the new wiki. Every incomplete transition throws away
information our users and potential developers need. If there’s no one
who pledges to transition the whole wiki — and has a history of
delivering on his or her pledges — then a transition to a new wiki is a
recipe for failure. We’d either lose important information or we’d have
two Wikis to maintain.

That’s it. I gave my arguments. I won’t argument this further. We’re
moving in circles and different from the website where I said "not now"
and not "we should not", I won’t start seeing a wiki transition as
useful just because arguments are repeated.

As long as there is no one who pledges to transition the whole wiki and
has a history of delivering on his or her pledges, transitioning the wiki
is a dumb idea.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
wrote:
>
> I don’t think that’s a fair assessment — Mediawiki syntax is pretty
> decent and nicely full-featured — and I don’t think that markup matters
> that much in this. Markdown is nice, but the difference isn’t that big
> (I used to think different but changed my stance with experience).
>
> Transitioning simply is a lot of very boring work, and there are lots of
> corner cases which don’t work by default.
>

I acknowledge that it might not be easy, but you acknowledge that we didn't
even complete the last wiki migration.  Github is easy to use, and its wiki
syntax is very familiar to people.  I think that will be a better place for
us to be ultimately.  I really dislike the idea of us running our own web
servers, we're just begging to be hacked or to hit a scalability wall.

If volunteers are unwilling to do it, then we could pick the most important
pages and pay someone to migrate them.  People competent in that kind of
work can be hired quite cheaply.

Ian.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Ian writes:

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
>> > Because why make the devops of a web server our problem (eg. dealing with
>> > security, sudden traffic influxes, etc), when we can make it someone
>> else's
>> > problem (ie. Github's)?  We should focus on the software we're creating,
>> > not on devops for websites.
>>
>> Because using yet another wiki makes the conversion of the existing
>> content and the replacement of all the incoming links our problem.
>>
>> And that’s a problem at which we already failed once (in the transition
>> From the old wiki to the current wiki which is still not finished).
>
> Maybe the reason the new wiki failed was because it also uses the awful
> MediaWiki syntax, while the rest of the world has moved on to a
> Markdown-based syntax (like Github Wiki)?

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment — Mediawiki syntax is pretty
decent and nicely full-featured — and I don’t think that markup matters
that much in this. Markdown is nice, but the difference isn’t that big
(I used to think different but changed my stance with experience).

Transitioning simply is a lot of very boring work, and there are lots of
corner cases which don’t work by default.

>> Because I think the problems with the existing site are fundamental, and
>> it
>> > would be very inefficient to solve them incrementally.
>>
>> Do I understand it correctly that with that you mean you consider the
>> cost of fixing the current site incrementally to be higher than the cost
>> of redoing what is needed to make everything work with a rewrite?
>
> Yes, the current site is hideous, I am confident that it would be far more
> work to fix it incrementally than to start again from scratch.

I wouldn’t call it hideous, but I’ll accept your work estimate,
especially given that it’s not about transitioning the content of the
current site into a new design.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
> > Because why make the devops of a web server our problem (eg. dealing with
> > security, sudden traffic influxes, etc), when we can make it someone
> else's
> > problem (ie. Github's)?  We should focus on the software we're creating,
> > not on devops for websites.
>
> Because using yet another wiki makes the conversion of the existing
> content and the replacement of all the incoming links our problem.
>
> And that’s a problem at which we already failed once (in the transition
> From the old wiki to the current wiki which is still not finished).
>

Maybe the reason the new wiki failed was because it also uses the awful
MediaWiki syntax, while the rest of the world has moved on to a
Markdown-based syntax (like Github Wiki)?

> Because I think the problems with the existing site are fundamental, and
> it
> > would be very inefficient to solve them incrementally.
>
> Do I understand it correctly that with that you mean you consider the
> cost of fixing the current site incrementally to be higher than the cost
> of redoing what is needed to make everything work with a rewrite?
>

Yes, the current site is hideous, I am confident that it would be far more
work to fix it incrementally than to start again from scratch.

Ian.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 21:43 +0200, x...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> Same as my last mail about the website, I'll try to have this be the
> last mail with regards to our discussion here.
> This sub-thread here isn't helping the project, so I should stop
> replying to it.
> 

That's a great idea. You are hijacking every single thread and making
them all about you, what you think and how you feel, which frankly, no
one cares about. 

We all have a life, yet no one is talking about theirs as much as you
do. I've never met you, yet I seem to know way too much about you, your
health, your family situation, your feelings, ...

This thread is me asking our coordinator where we are going, and what
vision he has for the project. We have been going for over a decade and
a half... it seems like a legitimate question.

> Unlike the one to Ian, this one is *not* going to try to be positive.
> In fact, it will not only be negative but may also be hurtful.
> Sorry, but I am fed up with the harassment of Florent and I will tell
> him why.
> I cannot productively write code under the circumstance that every
> day I wake up to an insult of him.
> 

Where did I insult you?

> I can at least tell you that nobody else needs to waste his time in
> reading this if you don't feel like reading it. It contains
> information primarily valuable for Florent.
> 

If that's the case, why are you posting it on a mailing list? 
(again logic)

> On Monday, August 08, 2016 10:08:49 AM Florent Daigniere wrote:
> > 
> > You have to accept the fact that you can't be the right tool for
> > doing
> > everything. In the past few days alone, you have suggested that
> > you're
> > qualified to be:
> > - the resident website design guy
> > - the PR/spokesperson
> > - the fund-raising guy
> > - the WoT developer
> 
> Shame on me for believing I could be able to do 4 things as a human.
> 
> > 
> > I have never argued that you can't do any of it, I have argued that
> > you
> > are not good-enough at it to be our paid resource working on it.
> 
> You neither are.

I have never claimed or pretended that I am, contrary to you.

> You insult everyone around you.
> The only judgments you ever do about anything are negative.
> Do you think this puts you into a position to judge who can represent
> the project?

No, that is why I insist that the project coordinator is kept in the
loop...

> Do you think this helps the team stay productive?

I do think that your constant bikeshedding is actively
preventing everyone from making progress, yes.

You can't take no for an answer and have recently illustrated it once
again on the website-redesign thread. Regardless of who it comes from,
you can't accept decisions you don't agree with... and seem to drag
down the discussion "at your level", hoping to beat people "with
experience".

> Waking up to insults every day?
> Do you really think this makes anyone write more code?
> 
> And: You haven't written a *single* commit of WoT code, yet you
> believe you can judge my work. Still, you constantly repeat that
> we're a meritocracy.
> 

You are the second biggest direct expense the project has ever had
(over a 15y+ lifespan). What do you have to show for it? You have
produced code we are too embarrassed to ship in the default install!
You have been funded for years, yet none of the code you wrote is
actually distributed to new users... go figure.

I think that it is legitimate for me to ask the question: WTF are we
doing? How do we justify sending more money your way?


I have avoided making it about your performance or capacity, but if you
want to go there, fine. We can talk about it... You have missed every-
single of your self-defined (and readjusted) dead-lines:
https://bugs.freenetproject.org/roadmap_page.php?project_id=11


Ian might see something that I don't (have a vision)... but I want to
ensure that this is the case, and not just the result of him being too
busy and "keeping things as they are" because it's convenient.


> And besides: Why didn't you just fork your "Florent-net" already?

How is that relevant? I wake up everyday and regret not having done so
when 0.7 came out.

> You dislike Freenet's goals, you dislike the contributors, you
> dislike the decision procedures. You yourself say that you don't even
> want users. Is there anything you like at all?
> 
> And why are you even writing software in the first place?
> If you don't want users, write papers.
> If you didn't want to give people electricity, you wouldn't build a
> power plant.
> At best, you'd write a physics book on how to build power plants.
> Software is meant to be used, and software is thus meant to appease
> users.
> 

HAHAHAHA. That comes from a guy whose code the project doesn't even
ship.

> So papers may indeed be much more fun for you.
> And guess what: We're having a big lack of people writing papers
> anyway.
> So perhaps for the benefit of increasing your own fun just resort to
> that and leave people alone with anything user-focu

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[xor]

Same as my last mail about the website, I'll try to have this be the last mail 
with regards to our discussion here.
This sub-thread here isn't helping the project, so I should stop replying to 
it.

Unlike the one to Ian, this one is *not* going to try to be positive.
In fact, it will not only be negative but may also be hurtful.
Sorry, but I am fed up with the harassment of Florent and I will tell him why.
I cannot productively write code under the circumstance that every day I wake 
up to an insult of him.

I can at least tell you that nobody else needs to waste his time in reading 
this if you don't feel like reading it. It contains information primarily 
valuable for Florent.


On Monday, August 08, 2016 10:08:49 AM Florent Daigniere wrote:
> You have to accept the fact that you can't be the right tool for doing
> everything. In the past few days alone, you have suggested that you're
> qualified to be:
> - the resident website design guy
> - the PR/spokesperson
> - the fund-raising guy
> - the WoT developer

Shame on me for believing I could be able to do 4 things as a human.

> I have never argued that you can't do any of it, I have argued that you
> are not good-enough at it to be our paid resource working on it.

You neither are.
You insult everyone around you.
The only judgments you ever do about anything are negative.
Do you think this puts you into a position to judge who can represent the 
project?
Do you think this helps the team stay productive?
Waking up to insults every day?
Do you really think this makes anyone write more code?

And: You haven't written a *single* commit of WoT code, yet you believe you 
can judge my work. Still, you constantly repeat that we're a meritocracy.


And besides: Why didn't you just fork your "Florent-net" already?
You dislike Freenet's goals, you dislike the contributors, you dislike the 
decision procedures. You yourself say that you don't even want users.
Is there anything you like at all?

And why are you even writing software in the first place?
If you don't want users, write papers.
If you didn't want to give people electricity, you wouldn't build a power 
plant.
At best, you'd write a physics book on how to build power plants.
Software is meant to be used, and software is thus meant to appease users.

So papers may indeed be much more fun for you.
And guess what: We're having a big lack of people writing papers anyway.
So perhaps for the benefit of increasing your own fun just resort to that and 
leave people alone with anything user-focused?

> Other members of the community accept criticism and the standard our
> RMs are setting, you don't seem to.

I cannot remember a single instance of you using the word "sorry".

In fact, you're so obviously bad at this that:
- you not just once made another human being consider writing a shell script 
to count the number of times you said "sorry" in IRC discussions, just to 
prove that you never do.
- you made another human being collect a directory full of you arbitrarily 
insulting people. It currently contains 17 log files of 17 distinct IRC 
discussions.
- And for the record: You're absolutely the only human being who made me 
gather this data.

Ask yourself: Is making someone else do this a great accomplishment you've 
done with your life?

You are the one who cannot accept criticism.

> No. It's even the proof that you don't understand the job description.
> 
> Raising $20 once isn't what is going to keep the project afloat. The
> idea of having a paid resource raising money is that it should be able
> to raise more money than it costs; you have brilliantly demonstrated
> that you don't even understand that!

You really think this was about the $ 20?
The $ 20 are irrelevant.
This was about showing social skill, which is the key requirement for anything 
related to asking other people for help.

But I can understand that you wouldn't see social skill given that you don't 
seem to care at all about trying to show it.

I don't even think you have no social skill. You're very certainly intelligent 
enough for having it.
You just actively decide against using it, which is the biggest insult you can 
give people in the first place.
You show people that you actively decide to not care about how bad you make 
them feel. I've told you numerous times that your gross insults hurt me, and 
you don't even try to stop with them.

This is the highest form of disrespect.

> > (Attention: More bragging ahead!)
> > 
> > I had already gotten one of those two journalists to dedicate half a
> > page of 
> > the local newspaper to an article about Bitcoin. It was half
> > interview with 
> > me, half comment - and the comment did seem positive, which I think
> > is a
> > success given how many people doubted Bitcoin in 2013.
> > (I can provide a scan to Ian if you doubt that, he knows my real name
> > so I 
> > wouldn't care to give it to him.)
> 
> Have you asked for the permission to do that? The line is pretty clear,
> you're a

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 00:11 +0200, x...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> On Sunday, August 07, 2016 08:24:59 AM Florent Daigniere wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > I've also voted for that.
> > > 
> > > So in other words: I am totally willing to deal with fundraising
> > > while being 
> > > an employee should I be allowed to continue my employment.
> > 
> > Willingness is one thing, capacity (and track record) is another.
> > Do
> > you have any form of experience at successfully raising money? Why
> > should the project pick *you* as its paid resource to do it?
> > 
> > "because you're willing to do it as a paid employee" doesn't strike
> > me
> > as a good-enough reason.
> 
> I really don't enjoy going down to the level of bragging.
> But you did seem to ask for a proof of whether I can do that, and
> admittedly
> I feel frustrated and provoked by the constant doubt you express
> towards me,
> so I guess it's your own fault :)


You have to accept the fact that you can't be the right tool for doing
everything. In the past few days alone, you have suggested that you're
qualified to be:
- the resident website design guy
- the PR/spokesperson
- the fund-raising guy
- the WoT developer

I have never argued that you can't do any of it, I have argued that you
are not good-enough at it to be our paid resource working on it.

Other members of the community accept criticism and the standard our
RMs are setting, you don't seem to.

>  If you want less bragging, please apply
> less criticism on persons. So anyway, the bragging follows - anyone
> who
> doesn't like bragging please do not read this:
> 
> Just this week I've been at the local pub with my laptop working on
> WoT.
> Complete stranger asked me what I was doing.
> After 15 minutes of explaining it, he actually handed me cash as a
> donation.
> I had not even asked for any kind of donation whatsoever.
> And I told him like 10 times that it would be really impolite for me
> to take 
> money, he should instead donate to FPI directly.
> He insisted on me taking the money.
> Is getting a complete random stranger to persuade me to take a
> night's worth 
> of beer as cash enough of a track record? :)
> 

No. It's even the proof that you don't understand the job description.

Raising $20 once isn't what is going to keep the project afloat. The
idea of having a paid resource raising money is that it should be able
to raise more money than it costs; you have brilliantly demonstrated
that you don't even understand that!

[snip]

> > > (I've in fact scheduled 2 interviews with journalists currently
> > > to
> > > raise 
> > > awareness even while being a volunteer. Those things just take
> > > time.
> > > Please be 
> > > patient.)
> > 
> > That's PR, it's best handled by people who know what they're
> > doing...
> 
> (Attention: More bragging ahead!)
> 
> I had already gotten one of those two journalists to dedicate half a
> page of 
> the local newspaper to an article about Bitcoin. It was half
> interview with 
> me, half comment - and the comment did seem positive, which I think
> is a
> success given how many people doubted Bitcoin in 2013.
> (I can provide a scan to Ian if you doubt that, he knows my real name
> so I 
> wouldn't care to give it to him.)
> 

Have you asked for the permission to do that? The line is pretty clear,
you're allowed to do advocacy (like anyone else), but if you represent
the project in front of the press, you run it through its coordinator.

For the record, I am definitely not comfortable with you representing
"us" and I have made that clear to our coordinator (Ian) in the past.

> > and really, it needs to be coordinated. In the past Ian did
> > successfully^wskillfully handle it; did you at least run it by him?
> 
> The interviews / articles are not finished yet.
> I'll let people know when they are.
> 

"ask for forgiveness is better than asking for permission" is the moto,
right?

Florent

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] About the project

[x...@freenetproject.org]

On Sunday, August 07, 2016 08:24:59 AM Florent Daigniere wrote:
> > I've also voted for that.
> > 
> > So in other words: I am totally willing to deal with fundraising
> > while being 
> > an employee should I be allowed to continue my employment.
> 
> Willingness is one thing, capacity (and track record) is another. Do
> you have any form of experience at successfully raising money? Why
> should the project pick *you* as its paid resource to do it?
> 
> "because you're willing to do it as a paid employee" doesn't strike me
> as a good-enough reason.

I really don't enjoy going down to the level of bragging.
But you did seem to ask for a proof of whether I can do that, and admittedly
I feel frustrated and provoked by the constant doubt you express towards me,
so I guess it's your own fault :) If you want less bragging, please apply
less criticism on persons. So anyway, the bragging follows - anyone who
doesn't like bragging please do not read this:

Just this week I've been at the local pub with my laptop working on WoT.
Complete stranger asked me what I was doing.
After 15 minutes of explaining it, he actually handed me cash as a donation.
I had not even asked for any kind of donation whatsoever.
And I told him like 10 times that it would be really impolite for me to take 
money, he should instead donate to FPI directly.
He insisted on me taking the money.
Is getting a complete random stranger to persuade me to take a night's worth 
of beer as cash enough of a track record? :)

Here's the money going to FPI:
https://blockchain.info/tx/2e1e2974719dd713c9891ad33a3d62fab08e20e8a77e327c946e371a4f82a335

(Interestingly, Bitcoin Core allows me to prove that the money came from me:
It can be used to sign arbitrary messages with the private key of the source 
address. So here you go:

Address: "1CUYEC5LzT6U12wCCiNyQvFmrrpLWfyvzb"
Message: "Money indeed given from random stranger to xor"
Sig: 
"HyAY8Ku9B4TX1SlO55Px/q5khqrCirNWEvWmpRuMogR8Y38EM1kw+NgwIhIipwb1mE3PupDM6cFUZTDgfUmLHII="

You can validate this at "File / Verify message".
And btw., another nice thing about Bitcoin is that it provides a rough proof
of the timespan when something happened. So you can see from the timestamp
on blockchain.info that I sent the money 5 days before your mail to which
I am replying. So you know I didn't just send it now to make a point.)

> > I've did lots of efforts *after* money ran out and it turned out to
> > be a bad 
> > decision to wait for that long with it - it just takes some months to
> > reach 
> > results.
> > Thus as a conclusion I'm now eager to allocate some time to it
> > *while* we 
> > still have money.
> 
> Duh. logic fail.

Why? 
The previous approach was a failure, so I'm willing to chose one which looks 
like an improvement?
What is a failure about that?

I don't understand, sorry, please explain.

> > (I've in fact scheduled 2 interviews with journalists currently to
> > raise 
> > awareness even while being a volunteer. Those things just take time.
> > Please be 
> > patient.)
> 
> That's PR, it's best handled by people who know what they're doing...

(Attention: More bragging ahead!)

I had already gotten one of those two journalists to dedicate half a page of 
the local newspaper to an article about Bitcoin. It was half interview with 
me, half comment - and the comment did seem positive, which I think is a
success given how many people doubted Bitcoin in 2013.
(I can provide a scan to Ian if you doubt that, he knows my real name so I 
wouldn't care to give it to him.)

> and really, it needs to be coordinated. In the past Ian did
> successfully^wskillfully handle it; did you at least run it by him?

The interviews / articles are not finished yet.
I'll let people know when they are.

--
hopstolive  (keyword for Ians spam filter)
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 20:05 +0200, x...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> (I don't have the time to reply to the whole thing just yet, but
> there is 
> something important I want to state right away)
> 
> 
> On Saturday, August 06, 2016 04:22:44 PM Florent Daigniere wrote:
> > 
> > I've realised the other day that the fund-raising campaign (what's
> > still on the website) is conducted solely with the intent of
> > funding
> > xor for a year... leaving his assignment/performance apart from the
> > discussion... how does any of it cater for "after"?
> 
> I have been the one to explicitly add the following task suggestion
> to the 
> money poll:
> 
> > 
> > Fundraising: While volunteers did help with fundraising, they don't
> > seem to
> > enjoy it very much – we've contacted much fewer entities than those
> > listed
> > in the Wiki. So also have Freenet's employee do it. Important as
> > Matthew
> > will require much higher level of funding to come back.
> 
> I've also voted for that.
> 
> So in other words: I am totally willing to deal with fundraising
> while being 
> an employee should I be allowed to continue my employment.

Willingness is one thing, capacity (and track record) is another. Do
you have any form of experience at successfully raising money? Why
should the project pick *you* as its paid resource to do it?

"because you're willing to do it as a paid employee" doesn't strike me
as a good-enough reason.

> I've did lots of efforts *after* money ran out and it turned out to
> be a bad 
> decision to wait for that long with it - it just takes some months to
> reach 
> results.
> Thus as a conclusion I'm now eager to allocate some time to it
> *while* we 
> still have money.
> 

Duh. logic fail.

> (I've in fact scheduled 2 interviews with journalists currently to
> raise 
> awareness even while being a volunteer. Those things just take time.
> Please be 
> patient.)
> 

That's PR, it's best handled by people who know what they're doing...
and really, it needs to be coordinated. In the past Ian did
successfully^wskillfully handle it; did you at least run it by him?

Florent

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[xor]

I almost 100% agree with your mail! :)

Some additions to your ideas follow:


On Saturday, August 06, 2016 09:42:52 AM Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 9:22 AM, Florent Daigniere nextg...@freenetproject.org
> 
>  wrote:
> > The project is in terrible shape due to the lack of leadership, and
> > most of it boils down to the fact that you're just not around (I'm sure
> > you're busy with other things).
> 
> It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things (namely making
> a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people).  Should someone else
> come along with the time, motivation, and expertise to take over as
> coordinator, I would welcome it.  No such person has come forward.

I do consider Steve as our release manager, and to be honest he's also a 
leader for me currently.
He's spent an insane amount of work in both code-review and deployment and 
also steering the project. You merely don't know that because you didn't read 
IRC over the past years - he is very very active.
That should be rewarded :)

That doesn't make you less of a leader though, we just have two of them :)

> > What's wrong is not just the current
> > funding allocation fiasco (who will ever consider sponsoring us, now
> > that we've shown that we don't even know what to do with the money we
> > have?).
> 
> We're in the midst of a process to do exactly that, a process which is now
> moving forward.

Agree!

> > - we have no roadmap; we need one.
> 
> That's precisely what this process is designed to create.

Agree!

> > - the consensus / democratic / hipster way of taking decisions doesn't
> >
> > work for open-source projects that aren't funded.
> 
> Why do you assume that the process won't work before we've even tried it?

Agree very much! Let's try the thing before we call it a failure.

+1

> > Open source projects are a meritocracy where do-ers have power; those that
> > disagree are free to fork and become do-ers.
> 
> That seems self-contradictory to me - you just recommended having a
> roadmap, and yet now you seem to be arguing that a volunteer-run project
> can't have a roadmap because nobody can be compelled to do anything they
> don't want to do.

Agree.

Also, once we've finished the poll, nothing prevents us from doing this:
Not just only have 1 result spreadsheet, but 3:
- One to compute the average as a result of *all* voters.
- One to compute the average only from users.
- One to compute the average of the "do-ers" Florent has just talked about. 
I.e. only the most active core developers.

Then we can look at the differences and discuss whether we need to adapt the 
roadmap in favor of the "more qualified" opinions of the people who know the 
codebase more than the users.
 
> > - the current level of funding doesn't give much time/resources and
> > it's clearly a waste of time for everyone involved to argue about
> > processes for allocating them.
> 
> Who is arguing?  Most people seem to be just getting on with working within
> the process.  Everyone had ample opportunity to offer feedback on the
> process months ago when it was first proposed.  I don't understand why you
> and others have waited until we're in the middle of the process before
> trying to poke holes in it.

I agree, it's not fair to argue against the procedure yourself while ignoring 
that the time for arguing is over *and* then complain that people are arguing 
against it.

It's also not a waste of time to go through with it from the *current* state:
We've set a 1 week deadline for replies before the next stage begins.
The next stage can have a 1 week deadline as well.

2 weeks surely isn't much of a loss of time.

So everyone please just fill in the spreadsheet (or don't), and if you don't 
like the results after it is finished, you can still complain then :)

> > Time is money, even if it's only volunteers's. Just call the shots, those 
> > that disagree are free to leave (and that comes from someone who has a
> > long history of disagreeing with most of your previous calls :)). I'm
> > puzzled as of why you've decided to do things differently this time
> > around...
>
> Because I noticed that a solid "core" of Freenet developers seemed very
> resentful of me getting involved in the project again, and so I concluded
> that if I just came in and started to bark orders at people, they would not
> respond well.

This is a very honorable insight of yours :)
And well, to be honest, it is true. People were frustrated.
But it's nice that you've realized this and want to go through with improving 
it, so please just continue what you're doing :)

(and as said, give Steve some power as well :)
 
> > What's the strategy/long-term roadmap for the project? I mean, once
> > we've blown the current financial resources, what's the plan?
> 
> I would say the goal is two-fold:
> 
> a) Get Freenet to the point that it is easy to use, comparable to
> contemporary software-projects in terms of UI design, marketing etc.
> 
> b) Ensure that Freene

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Ian writes:

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
>  wrote:
>> We already have a wiki. Why not https://wiki.freenetproject.org?
>>
>
> Because why make the devops of a web server our problem (eg. dealing with
> security, sudden traffic influxes, etc), when we can make it someone else's
> problem (ie. Github's)?  We should focus on the software we're creating,
> not on devops for websites.

Because using yet another wiki makes the conversion of the existing
content and the replacement of all the incoming links our problem.

And that’s a problem at which we already failed once (in the transition
From the old wiki to the current wiki which is still not finished).

>> As I already wrote, using the new design for a landing site like
>>
>> https://get.freenetproject.org
>>
>> and keeping the current site would void all these problems. We would
>> have a cool, low maintenance site to show new users without having to
>> convert all existing content and forward the links.
>>
>
> That's definitely an option we should consider as an interim step, so long
> as traffic to http://freenetproject.org/ goes to the new site, not the old
> one.

That should easily be possible, even with simple tools like .htaccess or
a meta-redirect on the index page.

>> I don’t. But from what I saw in the past years, we cannot predict which
>> guide will become popular. There are several existing tutorials by other
>> people. The pattern of activity on Freenet tutorials is pretty erratic.
>
> Perhaps we can find a solution that will give us flexibility in how we
> route inbound URLs to specific content.

I think we already have that. It was needed to keep old links working
when we did the last transition.

>> Then let me ask you in your role of chief marketing officer: Why do you
>> prefer redesigning from the ground up over fixing what is broken on the
>> acustung site?
>
> Because I think the problems with the existing site are fundamental, and it
> would be very inefficient to solve them incrementally.

Do I understand it correctly that with that you mean you consider the
cost of fixing the current site incrementally to be higher than the cost
of redoing what is needed to make everything work with a rewrite?

(just trying to understand how you do your cost calculation)

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[xor]

(I don't have the time to reply to the whole thing just yet, but there is 
something important I want to state right away)


On Saturday, August 06, 2016 04:22:44 PM Florent Daigniere wrote:
> I've realised the other day that the fund-raising campaign (what's
> still on the website) is conducted solely with the intent of funding
> xor for a year... leaving his assignment/performance apart from the
> discussion... how does any of it cater for "after"?

I have been the one to explicitly add the following task suggestion to the 
money poll:

> Fundraising: While volunteers did help with fundraising, they don't seem to
> enjoy it very much – we've contacted much fewer entities than those listed
> in the Wiki. So also have Freenet's employee do it. Important as Matthew
> will require much higher level of funding to come back.

I've also voted for that.

So in other words: I am totally willing to deal with fundraising while being 
an employee should I be allowed to continue my employment.
I've did lots of efforts *after* money ran out and it turned out to be a bad 
decision to wait for that long with it - it just takes some months to reach 
results.
Thus as a conclusion I'm now eager to allocate some time to it *while* we 
still have money.

(I've in fact scheduled 2 interviews with journalists currently to raise 
awareness even while being a volunteer. Those things just take time. Please be 
patient.)

--
hopstolive  (keyword for Ians spam filter)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
 wrote:

>
> > This seems like an unnecessary complication.  The new site will be
> > primarily aimed at new users, if they're already using Freenet then it is
> > preaching to the converted.
>
> We need a site with news. These news should also be available in Freenet.
>

Sure, but there is a difference between the things that would be
beneficial, and the things that should be preconditions to a website
redesign.


>
> > The detailed content will be in Github Wiki which can be mirrored into
> > Freenet, but this should not be a barrier to the website redesign.
>
> We already have a wiki. Why not https://wiki.freenetproject.org?
>

Because why make the devops of a web server our problem (eg. dealing with
security, sudden traffic influxes, etc), when we can make it someone else's
problem (ie. Github's)?  We should focus on the software we're creating,
not on devops for websites.


> As I already wrote, using the new design for a landing site like
>
> https://get.freenetproject.org
>
> and keeping the current site would void all these problems. We would
> have a cool, low maintenance site to show new users without having to
> convert all existing content and forward the links.
>

That's definitely an option we should consider as an interim step, so long
as traffic to http://freenetproject.org/ goes to the new site, not the old
one.


> I don’t. But from what I saw in the past years, we cannot predict which
> guide will become popular. There are several existing tutorials by other
> people. The pattern of activity on Freenet tutorials is pretty erratic.
>

Perhaps we can find a solution that will give us flexibility in how we
route inbound URLs to specific content.  Github Pages may not have
sufficient flexibility, but we should definitely try to find a solution
that relieves us of the challenge of ensuring scalability and security.
Google App Engine might be a good option here.

Then let me ask you in your role of chief marketing officer: Why do you
> prefer redesigning from the ground up over fixing what is broken on the
> acustung site?
>

Because I think the problems with the existing site are fundamental, and it
would be very inefficient to solve them incrementally.

Ian.


On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
wrote:

>
> Ian writes:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things (namely
> >> making
> >> > a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people).  Should someone
> >> else
> >> > come along with the time, motivation, and expertise to take over as
> >> > coordinator, I would welcome it.  No such person has come forward.
> >>
> >> For the past 2 years, except for money allocation, that person has been
> >> Steve. He merges pull requests and all volunteers respect his decisions
> >> on merging. For the volunteer work we’re not missing leadership.
> >
> > If Steve is interested in taking over as coordinator then I would be more
> > than happy to discuss it with him.
>
> It would be great if you could take it up with him.
>
> >> a) that new site works when uploaded into Freenet and
> >
> > This seems like an unnecessary complication.  The new site will be
> > primarily aimed at new users, if they're already using Freenet then it is
> > preaching to the converted.
>
> We need a site with news. These news should also be available in Freenet.
>
> > The detailed content will be in Github Wiki which can be mirrored into
> > Freenet, but this should not be a barrier to the website redesign.
>
> We already have a wiki. Why not https://wiki.freenetproject.org?
>
> As I already wrote, using the new design for a landing site like
>
> https://get.freenetproject.org
>
> and keeping the current site would void all these problems. We would
> have a cool, low maintenance site to show new users without having to
> convert all existing content and forward the links.
>
> >> b) it preserves all inbound links and
>
> > This is desirable, unless it becomes a significant impediment to a
> > redesign.  Do we know which inbound links receive significant traffic?
>
> I don’t. But from what I saw in the past years, we cannot predict which
> guide will become popular. There are several existing tutorials by other
> people. The pattern of activity on Freenet tutorials is pretty erratic.
>
> >> c) is actually finished, so it does not require us volunteers to spend
> >>half a year of work to make it actually work (like re-translating
> >>everything, re-integrating the infrastructure to deploy it, etc).
> >
> > The new site will require re-translation, but this should not be turned
> > into an obstacle to the redesign.  Since the new site will focus on
> > education of non-Freenet users, it should have a lot less copy requiring
> > translation.
> >
> >> However I would much prefer if your proposal would not be to task a
> >> designer with redesigning 

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Ian writes:

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
> wrote:
>>
>> > It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things (namely
>> making
>> > a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people).  Should someone
>> else
>> > come along with the time, motivation, and expertise to take over as
>> > coordinator, I would welcome it.  No such person has come forward.
>>
>> For the past 2 years, except for money allocation, that person has been
>> Steve. He merges pull requests and all volunteers respect his decisions
>> on merging. For the volunteer work we’re not missing leadership.
>
> If Steve is interested in taking over as coordinator then I would be more
> than happy to discuss it with him.

It would be great if you could take it up with him.

>> a) that new site works when uploaded into Freenet and
>
> This seems like an unnecessary complication.  The new site will be
> primarily aimed at new users, if they're already using Freenet then it is
> preaching to the converted.

We need a site with news. These news should also be available in Freenet.

> The detailed content will be in Github Wiki which can be mirrored into
> Freenet, but this should not be a barrier to the website redesign.

We already have a wiki. Why not https://wiki.freenetproject.org?

As I already wrote, using the new design for a landing site like

https://get.freenetproject.org

and keeping the current site would void all these problems. We would
have a cool, low maintenance site to show new users without having to
convert all existing content and forward the links.

>> b) it preserves all inbound links and

> This is desirable, unless it becomes a significant impediment to a
> redesign.  Do we know which inbound links receive significant traffic?

I don’t. But from what I saw in the past years, we cannot predict which
guide will become popular. There are several existing tutorials by other
people. The pattern of activity on Freenet tutorials is pretty erratic.

>> c) is actually finished, so it does not require us volunteers to spend
>>half a year of work to make it actually work (like re-translating
>>everything, re-integrating the infrastructure to deploy it, etc).
>
> The new site will require re-translation, but this should not be turned
> into an obstacle to the redesign.  Since the new site will focus on
> education of non-Freenet users, it should have a lot less copy requiring
> translation.
>
>> However I would much prefer if your proposal would not be to task a
>> designer with redesigning it "from the ground up", but with "making the
>> Freenet site rock" and leaving it to the designer whether to break
>> everything (and invest the work to integrate everything) or to just
>> create a better theme and restructure existing content.
>
> Designers don't make that kind of decision, the role you're thinking of is
> Chief Marketing Officer.  We don't have one of those, but fortunately I
> have a good understanding of marketing.

Then let me ask you in your role of chief marketing officer: Why do you
prefer redesigning from the ground up over fixing what is broken on the
acustung site?

I ask for your reasons because in the answers to your question how the
site should be changed which you once linked, 5 out of 6 people said
they would only do smaller changes (like fixing the download site and
reducing the complexity of the menu).

Rewriting the site from scratch has the cost¹ that all the existing work
on fixing the site for specific use cases is lost, and that links need
to be converted and content be transferred. However this cost
calculation is only valid when the new site actually replaces the
site. The cost would be much reduced when making the new site a
dedicated landing site and keeping the old site for the tasks the new
site isn’t intended to fulfil. That’s why I’m suggesting to put that
site at https://get.freenetproject.org

¹: With cost I mean all resources — money plus required volunteer work.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide 
wrote:
>
> > It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things (namely
> making
> > a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people).  Should someone
> else
> > come along with the time, motivation, and expertise to take over as
> > coordinator, I would welcome it.  No such person has come forward.
>
> For the past 2 years, except for money allocation, that person has been
> Steve. He merges pull requests and all volunteers respect his decisions
> on merging. For the volunteer work we’re not missing leadership.
>

If Steve is interested in taking over as coordinator then I would be more
than happy to discuss it with him.


> a) that new site works when uploaded into Freenet and
>

This seems like an unnecessary complication.  The new site will be
primarily aimed at new users, if they're already using Freenet then it is
preaching to the converted. The detailed content will be in Github Wiki
which can be mirrored into Freenet, but this should not be a barrier to the
website redesign.


> b) it preserves all inbound links and
>

This is desirable, unless it becomes a significant impediment to a
redesign.  Do we know which inbound links receive significant traffic?


> c) is actually finished, so it does not require us volunteers to spend
>half a year of work to make it actually work (like re-translating
>everything, re-integrating the infrastructure to deploy it, etc).
>

The new site will require re-translation, but this should not be turned
into an obstacle to the redesign.  Since the new site will focus on
education of non-Freenet users, it should have a lot less copy requiring
translation.


> However I would much prefer if your proposal would not be to task a
> designer with redesigning it "from the ground up", but with "making the
> Freenet site rock" and leaving it to the designer whether to break
> everything (and invest the work to integrate everything) or to just
> create a better theme and restructure existing content.
>

Designers don't make that kind of decision, the role you're thinking of is
Chief Marketing Officer.  We don't have one of those, but fortunately I
have a good understanding of marketing.

Ian.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Ian Clarke writes:

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 9:22 AM, Florent Daigniere nextg...@freenetproject.org
>  wrote:
>
>> The project is in terrible shape due to the lack of leadership, and
>> most of it boils down to the fact that you're just not around (I'm sure
>> you're busy with other things).
>
> It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things (namely making
> a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people).  Should someone else
> come along with the time, motivation, and expertise to take over as
> coordinator, I would welcome it.  No such person has come forward.

For the past 2 years, except for money allocation, that person has been
Steve. He merges pull requests and all volunteers respect his decisions
on merging. For the volunteer work we’re not missing leadership.

> That seems self-contradictory to me - you just recommended having a
> roadmap, and yet now you seem to be arguing that a volunteer-run project
> can't have a roadmap because nobody can be compelled to do anything they
> don't want to do.

A common roadmap people can stand behind does not contradict power being
in the hands of do-ers. It helps seeing how all the tasks people care
about fit together to form a larger whole.

And if it shows 

> Because I noticed that a solid "core" of Freenet developers seemed very
> resentful of me getting involved in the project again

I was very happy when you started to get involved again.

I wasn’t happy when you started attacking people on a personal level
when they disagreed with what you proposed.

I wasn’t happy when you stated the path forward without knowing the
current state or requirements of our userbase.

> I would say the goal is two-fold:
>
> a) Get Freenet to the point that it is easy to use, comparable to
> contemporary software-projects in terms of UI design, marketing etc.
>
> b) Ensure that Freenet achieves its goal of ensuring true freedom of
> communication (which means it needs to be secure, etc)

(b) includes (a), because to be provide true freedom of communication
Freenet also needs to be widespread.

> If I wanted to be autocratic I'd immediately allocate $5k to get
> professional designers to redesign the website from the ground-up, however
> I have a strong feeling that would be met by howls of protest by those who
> (for reasons that make no sense to me) think the website is just fine the
> way it is.

If you would propose that, from me you’d get the answer that I’d be OK
with that (as I already said a few months ago — a year ago I called for
an embargo, not for sticking with the site forever) as long as

a) that new site works when uploaded into Freenet and
b) it preserves all inbound links and
c) is actually finished, so it does not require us volunteers to spend
   half a year of work to make it actually work (like re-translating
   everything, re-integrating the infrastructure to deploy it, etc).

However I would much prefer if your proposal would not be to task a
designer with redesigning it "from the ground up", but with "making the
Freenet site rock" and leaving it to the designer whether to break
everything (and invest the work to integrate everything) or to just
create a better theme and restructure existing content.

But I’m not calling for you to be autocratic. If you propose stuff which
obviously makes sense to most Freenet devs, and adjust that to take into
account constructive criticism (like taking into account requirements
you did not think about) then you can be confident that it will be
accepted by most people here, including me.

Best wishes,
Arne


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 10:55 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Florent Daigniere  roject.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 09:42 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things
> > (namely
> > > making a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people). 
> > Should
> > > someone else come along with the time, motivation, and expertise
> > to
> > > take over as coordinator, I would welcome it.  No such person has
> > > come forward.
> > >
> > 
> > I think that we should make it clear that we're looking for such a
> > person... Just like we should make clear that we're looking for a
> > UI/website designer and other things.
> 
> It's not exactly the type of thing you can put out a job rec for, and
> picking the wrong person could be disastrous (far worse than having
> someone time-constrained like me).
>  

Agreed. That's why we have a board, no? (there they can vote, since the
number of seats are limited)

> > I'm glad it is. It's been three months and it's only started making
> > sign of progress when I've sent my email (last Tuesday).
> 
> For the record, Xor and I had restarted the process before you sent
> that email.
>  
> > 
> > > - we have no roadmap; we need one.
> > >
> > > That's precisely what this process is designed to create.
> > >
> > 
> > Okay, then the thread shouldn't be called "Financial allocation
> > poll".
> 
> I didn't pick the subject, and I wouldn't have picked that one.
>  
> > Because I consider a 3 month delay a failure.
> 
> That has nothing to do with the process, and everything to do with me
> being time constrained, and nobody else picking up the ball and
> running with it, except for Xor.
>  
> > >  Time is money, even if it's only
> > > volunteers's. Just call the shots, those that disagree are free
> > to
> > > leave (and that comes from someone who has a long history of
> > > disagreeing with most of your previous calls :)). I'm puzzled as
> > of
> > > why
> > > you've decided to do things differently this time around...
> > >
> > > Because I noticed that a solid "core" of Freenet developers
> > seemed
> > > very resentful of me getting involved in the project again, and
> > so I
> > > concluded that if I just came in and started to bark orders at
> > > people, they would not respond well.
> > >
> > 
> > A good leader needs to be able to make calls that are not always
> > popular. Populism hasn't lead anyone anywhere.
> 
> Yes they do, but as you've pointed out elsewhere, the rules can be
> different when you're relying on volunteers that can't be compelled
> to do anything.
> 

That's why it's important to establish whether we're aiming at being a
funded project or not. I do think that money corrupts and I don't think
we should (but I know that you disagree).

> Whenever I've brought up the problems with the current website all of
> the voices in response were opposed to redesigning the site.

Timing is everything; just like you are not happy with people
"contributing" to your process while in the middle of it (they have
lives too and maybe they were busy before)... your comments came in
while an on-going effort at redesign was already well under way.

>   If you feel differently then perhaps you should have supported my
> point of view at that time, I was left with the perception that I was
> the only one who recognized that our current website is a serious
> liability.
>  

I didn't care enough about the website at the time to do so (neither
taking part to the on-going effort nor to your critic of it).

> > Reading again the spreadsheet on the other thread, very few of the
> > proposed items there are delivering something tangible towards
> > those
> > goals.
> 
> You had months to offer this feedback, why are you only offering it
> now?
>  

Because I came to the realisation that I deem it a failure; before I
didn't care enough about it and had other priorities.

Florent

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian Clarke]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Florent Daigniere <
nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 09:42 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things (namely
> > making a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people).  Should
> > someone else come along with the time, motivation, and expertise to
> > take over as coordinator, I would welcome it.  No such person has
> > come forward.
> >
>
> I think that we should make it clear that we're looking for such a
> person... Just like we should make clear that we're looking for a
> UI/website designer and other things.
>

It's not exactly the type of thing you can put out a job rec for, and
picking the wrong person could be disastrous (far worse than having someone
time-constrained like me).


> I'm glad it is. It's been three months and it's only started making
> sign of progress when I've sent my email (last Tuesday).
>

For the record, Xor and I had restarted the process before you sent that
email.


>
> > - we have no roadmap; we need one.
> >
> > That's precisely what this process is designed to create.
> >
>
> Okay, then the thread shouldn't be called "Financial allocation poll".
>

I didn't pick the subject, and I wouldn't have picked that one.


> Because I consider a 3 month delay a failure.


That has nothing to do with the process, and everything to do with me being
time constrained, and nobody else picking up the ball and running with it,
except for Xor.


> >  Time is money, even if it's only
> > volunteers's. Just call the shots, those that disagree are free to
> > leave (and that comes from someone who has a long history of
> > disagreeing with most of your previous calls :)). I'm puzzled as of
> > why
> > you've decided to do things differently this time around...
> >
> > Because I noticed that a solid "core" of Freenet developers seemed
> > very resentful of me getting involved in the project again, and so I
> > concluded that if I just came in and started to bark orders at
> > people, they would not respond well.
> >
>
> A good leader needs to be able to make calls that are not always
> popular. Populism hasn't lead anyone anywhere.
>

Yes they do, but as you've pointed out elsewhere, the rules can be
different when you're relying on volunteers that can't be compelled to do
anything.

Whenever I've brought up the problems with the current website all of the
voices in response were opposed to redesigning the site.  If you feel
differently then perhaps you should have supported my point of view at that
time, I was left with the perception that I was the only one who recognized
that our current website is a serious liability.


> Reading again the spreadsheet on the other thread, very few of the
> proposed items there are delivering something tangible towards those
> goals.
>

You had months to offer this feedback, why are you only offering it now?


> I don't like the design of the website either tbh... but more than the
> design, it's the content that needs to change... and I doubt that
> allocating $5k towards a re-design would solve that.
>
> Count me towards those in favour of allocating money to having a better
> website.
>

I will start a separate thread on this subject.

Ian.


-- 
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 09:42 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 9:22 AM, Florent Daigniere nextgens@freenetprojec
> t.org wrote:
> > 
> > The project is in terrible shape due to the lack of leadership, and
> > most of it boils down to the fact that you're just not around (I'm
> > sure
> > you're busy with other things). 
> > 
> 
> It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things (namely
> making a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people).  Should
> someone else come along with the time, motivation, and expertise to
> take over as coordinator, I would welcome it.  No such person has
> come forward.
> 

I think that we should make it clear that we're looking for such a
person... Just like we should make clear that we're looking for a
UI/website designer and other things.

> 
> What's wrong is not just the current
> funding allocation fiasco (who will ever consider sponsoring us, now
> that we've shown that we don't even know what to do with the money we
> have?).
> 
> We're in the midst of a process to do exactly that, a process which
> is now moving forward.
> 

I'm glad it is. It's been three months and it has only started making
sign of progress when I have sent my email (last Tuesday).

> 
> - we have no roadmap; we need one.
> 
> That's precisely what this process is designed to create.
> 

Okay, then the thread shouldn't be called "Financial allocation poll".

> 
> - the consensus / democratic / hipster way of taking decisions
> doesn't
> work for open-source projects that aren't funded.
> 
> Why do you assume that the process won't work before we've even tried
> it?
> 

Because I consider a 3 month delay a failure. Usually people make a
plan and raise funds towards achieving that plan... that usually
enables them to justify asking for more when they can show that they
have a track record of delivering what they have pledged for.

> 
> Open source projects
> are a meritocracy where do-ers have power; those that disagree are
> free
> to fork and become do-ers.
> 
> That seems self-contradictory to me - you just recommended having a
> roadmap, and yet now you seem to be arguing that a volunteer-run
> project can't have a roadmap because nobody can be compelled to do
> anything they don't want to do.
> 

That's not self-contradictory. That applies to projects that aren't
funded (the part you have removed).

Projects that are funded usually adopt a different model (for obvious
reasons).

> 
> - the current level of funding doesn't give much time/resources and
> it's clearly a waste of time for everyone involved to argue about
> processes for allocating them.
> 
> Who is arguing?  Most people seem to be just getting on with working
> within the process.  Everyone had ample opportunity to offer feedback
> on the process months ago when it was first proposed.  I don't
> understand why you and others have waited until we're in the middle
> of the process before trying to poke holes in it.
> 

I've waited for it to fail before complain about it straight away
(rather than assuming that it would fail). Take it as a proof that I'm
not always against trying new things.

We obviously have different metrics for quantifying failure; I'm okay
with that.

> 
>  Time is money, even if it's only
> volunteers's. Just call the shots, those that disagree are free to
> leave (and that comes from someone who has a long history of
> disagreeing with most of your previous calls :)). I'm puzzled as of
> why
> you've decided to do things differently this time around...
> 
> Because I noticed that a solid "core" of Freenet developers seemed
> very resentful of me getting involved in the project again, and so I
> concluded that if I just came in and started to bark orders at
> people, they would not respond well.
> 

A good leader needs to be able to make calls that are not always
popular. Populism hasn't lead anyone anywhere.

And yes, you might lose volunteers if your aim isn't aligned with
theirs... but surely that's better than not clarifying where you're
going?

> 
> What's the strategy/long-term roadmap for the project? I mean, once
> we've blown the current financial resources, what's the plan?
> 
> I would say the goal is two-fold:
> 
> a) Get Freenet to the point that it is easy to use, comparable to
> contemporary software-projects in terms of UI design, marketing etc.
> b) Ensure that Freenet achieves its goal of ensuring true freedom of
> communication (which means it needs to be secure, etc)
> 

I meant funding-wise. Those goals are nice (and things I might even
personally agree to) but when are we aiming at achieving them (or a
significant milestone towards them)? Do we need more resources
(including financial) to get there in time? If so, what are we doing to
get there?

Reading again the spreadsheet on the other thread, very few of the
proposed items are delivering something tangible towards those
goals.

> 
> PS: To be cristal clear, I'm fine with Freenet not having resources,
> be

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 09:42 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 9:22 AM, Florent Daigniere nextgens@freenetprojec
> t.org wrote:
> > The project is in terrible shape due to the lack of leadership, and
> > most of it boils down to the fact that you're just not around (I'm
> > sure
> > you're busy with other things). 
> > 
> 
> It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things (namely
> making a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people).  Should
> someone else come along with the time, motivation, and expertise to
> take over as coordinator, I would welcome it.  No such person has
> come forward.
> 

I think that we should make it clear that we're looking for such a
person... Just like we should make clear that we're looking for a
UI/website designer and other things.

> What's wrong is not just the current
> funding allocation fiasco (who will ever consider sponsoring us, now
> that we've shown that we don't even know what to do with the money we
> have?).
> 
> We're in the midst of a process to do exactly that, a process which
> is now moving forward.
> 

I'm glad it is. It's been three months and it's only started making
sign of progress when I've sent my email (last Tuesday).

> - we have no roadmap; we need one.
> 
> That's precisely what this process is designed to create.
> 

Okay, then the thread shouldn't be called "Financial allocation poll".

> - the consensus / democratic / hipster way of taking decisions
> doesn't
> work for open-source projects that aren't funded.
> 
> Why do you assume that the process won't work before we've even tried
> it?
> 

Because I consider a 3 month delay a failure. Usually people make a
plan and raise funds towards achieving that plan... that usually
enables them to justify asking for more when they can show that they've
 a track record of delivering what they have pledge for.

> Open source projects
> are a meritocracy where do-ers have power; those that disagree are
> free
> to fork and become do-ers.
> 
> That seems self-contradictory to me - you just recommended having a
> roadmap, and yet now you seem to be arguing that a volunteer-run
> project can't have a roadmap because nobody can be compelled to do
> anything they don't want to do.
> 

That's not self-contradictory. That applies to projects that aren't
funded (the part you've removed).

Projects that are funded usually adopt a different model (for obvious
reasons).

> - the current level of funding doesn't give much time/resources and
> it's clearly a waste of time for everyone involved to argue about
> processes for allocating them.
> 
> Who is arguing?  Most people seem to be just getting on with working
> within the process.  Everyone had ample opportunity to offer feedback
> on the process months ago when it was first proposed.  I don't
> understand why you and others have waited until we're in the middle
> of the process before trying to poke holes in it.
> 

I've waited for it to fail before complain about it straight away
(rather than assuming that it would fail). Take it as a proof that I'm
not always against trying new things.

We obviously have different metrics for quantifying failure; I'm okay
with that.

>  Time is money, even if it's only
> volunteers's. Just call the shots, those that disagree are free to
> leave (and that comes from someone who has a long history of
> disagreeing with most of your previous calls :)). I'm puzzled as of
> why
> you've decided to do things differently this time around...
> 
> Because I noticed that a solid "core" of Freenet developers seemed
> very resentful of me getting involved in the project again, and so I
> concluded that if I just came in and started to bark orders at
> people, they would not respond well.
> 

A good leader needs to be able to make calls that are not always
popular. Populism hasn't lead anyone anywhere.

And yes, you might lose volunteers if your aim isn't aligned with
their... but surely that's better than not clarifying where you're
going?

> What's the strategy/long-term roadmap for the project? I mean, once
> we've blown the current financial resources, what's the plan?
> 
> I would say the goal is two-fold:
> 
> a) Get Freenet to the point that it is easy to use, comparable to
> contemporary software-projects in terms of UI design, marketing etc.
> b) Ensure that Freenet achieves its goal of ensuring true freedom of
> communication (which means it needs to be secure, etc)
> 

I meant funding-wise. Those goals are nice (and things I might even
personally agree to) but when are we aiming at achieving them (or a
significant milestone towards them)? Do we need more resources
(including financial) to get there in time? If so, what are we doing to
get there?

Reading again the spreadsheet on the other thread, very few of the
proposed items there are delivering something tangible towards those
goals.

> PS: To be cristal clear, I'm fine with Freenet not having resources,
> being a research/toy project, I defin

Re: [freenet-dev] About the project

[Ian Clarke]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 9:22 AM, Florent Daigniere nextg...@freenetproject.org
 wrote:

> The project is in terrible shape due to the lack of leadership, and
>
> most of it boils down to the fact that you're just not around (I'm sure
>
> you're busy with other things).
>

It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things (namely making
a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people).  Should someone else
come along with the time, motivation, and expertise to take over as
coordinator, I would welcome it.  No such person has come forward.


What's wrong is not just the current

funding allocation fiasco (who will ever consider sponsoring us, now

that we've shown that we don't even know what to do with the money we

have?).


We're in the midst of a process to do exactly that, a process which is now
moving forward.


- we have no roadmap; we need one.


That's precisely what this process is designed to create.


- the consensus / democratic / hipster way of taking decisions doesn't

work for open-source projects that aren't funded.


Why do you assume that the process won't work before we've even tried it?


Open source projects

are a meritocracy where do-ers have power; those that disagree are free

to fork and become do-ers.


That seems self-contradictory to me - you just recommended having a
roadmap, and yet now you seem to be arguing that a volunteer-run project
can't have a roadmap because nobody can be compelled to do anything they
don't want to do.


- the current level of funding doesn't give much time/resources and

it's clearly a waste of time for everyone involved to argue about

processes for allocating them.


Who is arguing?  Most people seem to be just getting on with working within
the process.  Everyone had ample opportunity to offer feedback on the
process months ago when it was first proposed.  I don't understand why you
and others have waited until we're in the middle of the process before
trying to poke holes in it.


 Time is money, even if it's only

volunteers's. Just call the shots, those that disagree are free to

leave (and that comes from someone who has a long history of

disagreeing with most of your previous calls :)). I'm puzzled as of why

you've decided to do things differently this time around...


Because I noticed that a solid "core" of Freenet developers seemed very
resentful of me getting involved in the project again, and so I concluded
that if I just came in and started to bark orders at people, they would not
respond well.


What's the strategy/long-term roadmap for the project? I mean, once

we've blown the current financial resources, what's the plan?


I would say the goal is two-fold:


a) Get Freenet to the point that it is easy to use, comparable to
contemporary software-projects in terms of UI design, marketing etc.

b) Ensure that Freenet achieves its goal of ensuring true freedom of
communication (which means it needs to be secure, etc)


PS: To be cristal clear, I'm fine with Freenet not having resources,

being a research/toy project, I definitely don't want more

users/problems... but I don't understand the logic/strategy pursued by

those that do.


If I wanted to be autocratic I'd immediately allocate $5k to get
professional designers to redesign the website from the ground-up, however
I have a strong feeling that would be met by howls of protest by those who
(for reasons that make no sense to me) think the website is just fine the
way it is.


Ian.


-- 
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] About the project

[Florent Daigniere]

The project is in terrible shape due to the lack of leadership, and
most of it boils down to the fact that you're just not around (I'm sure
you're busy with other things). What's wrong is not just the current
funding allocation fiasco (who will ever consider sponsoring us, now
that we've shown that we don't even know what to do with the money we
have?).

I hate telling people what to do, but here the following is obvious to
me and deserves to be written elsewhere than on IRC:
- we have no roadmap; we need one.
- if the intent/focus is to concentrate on "having more resources", we
need to invest towards getting more. That means spending some of the
funds towards improving the status quo. I can expand on that if need
be, but you've already pointed out the obvious: we need an attractive
website (for users), codebase (for contributors), working installers
(duh!) and probably someone tasked with applying for funding (that may
have to be a paid resource) / PR
- the consensus / democratic / hipster way of taking decisions doesn't
work for open-source projects that aren't funded. Open source projects
are a meritocracy where do-ers have power; those that disagree are free
to fork and become do-ers.
- the current level of funding doesn't give much time/resources and
it's clearly a waste of time for everyone involved to argue about
processes for allocating them. Time is money, even if it's only
volunteers's. Just call the shots, those that disagree are free to
leave (and that comes from someone who has a long history of
disagreeing with most of your previous calls :)). I'm puzzled as of why
you've decided to do things differently this time around...

What's the strategy/long-term roadmap for the project? I mean, once
we've blown the current financial resources, what's the plan?

I've realised the other day that the fund-raising campaign (what's
still on the website) is conducted solely with the intent of funding
xor for a year... leaving his assignment/performance apart from the
discussion... how does any of it cater for "after"? Whether he succeeds
or not to deliver, it won't help us move forward; At best we'll have
more code (but not more resources).

Florent
PS: To be cristal clear, I'm fine with Freenet not having resources,
being a research/toy project, I definitely don't want more
users/problems... but I don't understand the logic/strategy pursued by
those that do.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl