Re: [freenet-dev] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Steve Dougherty wrote: > > > Is there any technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a > > Tor user, or even an explanation of how this could occur? The Google > > Docs client code can be easily examined, so if Google were somehow > > doing this, wouldn't it be easy to see? > > This addresses the idea at hand, but does put words in Arne's mouth as > he did not mention Tor here. > Firstly, even if I was putting words in Arne's mouth, this is not a personal attack. That being said, I wasn't putting words in his mouth. I'm inferring that he is referring to de-anonymization through Tor, and in fact I know that he is based on our off-list discussion. I don't think he would deny this. > > > In reality there is nothing other than your dislike of Google behind > > this concern. You're welcome to dislike Google if you wish, but you > > will need to make a better argument if you expect everyone else to > > adapt to your personal view, which is what you seem to be asking for. > > This reads into Arne's motivations as a person for having the idea. > He stated in our off-list discussion that distrust of Google as an organization was his motivation (he contrasted Google with the political organization behind PiratePad, which he believed was trustworthy). Again, I don't think he would deny this. > > These are all very weak arguments. > > This is an argumentative thing to say. I think it's already clear that > you find these arguments weak. > That is true, I was frustrated because Arne had started his email with an ultimatum - and my email would probably have been better without it. However, saying arguments are weak is not a personal attack, it is an attack on the arguments. > > So you admit that your position here is not governed by technical > > arguments (a good thing, since those were not convincing), but rather > > by animosity towards me due to a perceived insult. I'm glad you made > > that clear to everyone. > > This reads into Arne's motivations as a person, reiterates your already > very clear position that his arguments did not convince you, and > dismisses his feelings. > I'm not reading into Arne's motivations as a person, I'm referring to what Arne said in the paragraph I'm responding to, in which he stated his motivations. > > You have contributed very valuably to the project over the past few > > years Arne, and I sincerely hope that you continue to do-so, there > > really is no reason not to. > > "no reason not to" dismisses Arne's decision. > If by "dismisses" you mean that I disagree with Arne's decision, then you are correct, but I'm allowed to disagree with his decision. Again, not about him as a person, it's about his arguments. > But in this matter you aren't behaving constructively, and the project > > should not accede to unreasonable demands which you've just admitted > > are driven by personal animus towards me. > > This also accuses Arne. I'm stating my opinion that he is not behaving constructively, just as you are stating your opinion that I am not behaving constructively. I think you're entitled to state your opinion and so am I. You're criticizing me for doing what you're doing. > > The purpose of this project is to ensure that people have the freedom > > to communicate without fear of reprisal or censorship. I don't see > > how any of this serves that purpose. > > This dismisses bringing up objections to conduct. > I'm not dismissing anything, I'm stating my opinion that this debate doesn't further the goal of the project. That doesn't mean we can't have the debate. Again though, it isn't a personal attack on Arne. 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] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
For some reason I have not actually received this message, so I've copied it from the mailing list archive and hopefully threaded it properly. > I'll keep this as short as possible to focus on which seems to be the > crux of the issue: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Steve Dougherty > wrote: >> >> This sounds good, and would work well if it was what happened. The mail >> I responded to had a reasonable first paragraph discussing the idea at >> hand, and then started accusations about Arne as a person. >> > > The mail you responded to was the one that began "Is there any > technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a Tor user, or > even an explanation of how this could occur?" - is that correct? Yes. This one: https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2016-May/039015.html > If so, please tell me exactly where the accusations are about Arne as > a person, because I've reread that email a few times and again just > now, and I just don't see it. My criticism is of his arguments, not > him as a person. Okay. Here's my interpretation of the tone and content of what you wrote: On 05/25/2016 08:49 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide > wrote: >> >> Core technical reasons: >> >> - It excludes those of our users who assume (not unreasonably) that >> Google might de-anonymize them. >> > > Is there any technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a > Tor user, or even an explanation of how this could occur? The Google > Docs client code can be easily examined, so if Google were somehow > doing this, wouldn't it be easy to see? This addresses the idea at hand, but does put words in Arne's mouth as he did not mention Tor here. > In reality there is nothing other than your dislike of Google behind > this concern. You're welcome to dislike Google if you wish, but you > will need to make a better argument if you expect everyone else to > adapt to your personal view, which is what you seem to be asking for. This reads into Arne's motivations as a person for having the idea. > >> - It also excludes those who do not run Tor but only use Freenet for >> anonymous communication. >> > > And how can such people anonymously use PiratePad, which is your > preferred choice? It has exactly the same issue. > > >> - It does not work without Javascript. Many of our users disable >> Javascript, especially on Tor. >> > > Same for PiratePad, which is the choice you have advocated. > > >> - People who follow the mailing list cannot follow the discussion and >> development of the document. This makes the work intransparent for >> most of our community. >> > > PiratePad also suffers from this problem, as would any practical > solution that met our needs. > > >> - It is a non-free platform, so this workflow could be cut at any >> time. > > In the extremely unlikely event that Google suddenly shuts down Google > Docs, then it will not be difficult to switch to another solution. > > These are all very weak arguments. This is an argumentative thing to say. I think it's already clear that you find these arguments weak. >> Personal reason: >> >> When I told Ian about my reservations against using Google Docs, >> essentially the reasons I gave here, the discussion got personal. I >> won’t go into details here, but it hurt. > > >> If it had not been for that, I would have followed a community >> decision about Google Docs, just like I did about using Github. >> However this crossed the point of being about being reasonable. >> That’s why my decision not to use Google Docs here is final. >> > > So you admit that your position here is not governed by technical > arguments (a good thing, since those were not convincing), but rather > by animosity towards me due to a perceived insult. I'm glad you made > that clear to everyone. This reads into Arne's motivations as a person, reiterates your already very clear position that his arguments did not convince you, and dismisses his feelings. > You have contributed very valuably to the project over the past few > years Arne, and I sincerely hope that you continue to do-so, there > really is no reason not to. "no reason not to" dismisses Arne's decision. > But in this matter you aren't behaving constructively, and the project > should not accede to unreasonable demands which you've just admitted > are driven by personal animus towards me. This also accuses Arne. He could have silently not participated for these reasons, and it would not have been constructive to the Google Doc either. While he does reiterate his reasons to not use Google Docs, I do not perceive his message as a demand to use something else. I think his primary intent was to protest his treatment: "But I will not let myself be insulted for disagreeing with his assessment of implementation details of the best way forward. I bring this here, because I am not the first who is angry about something similar. It is not how I want to work." > The pur
Re: [freenet-dev] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
I'll keep this as short as possible to focus on which seems to be the crux of the issue: On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Steve Dougherty wrote: > > This sounds good, and would work well if it was what happened. The mail > I responded to had a reasonable first paragraph discussing the idea at > hand, and then started accusations about Arne as a person. > The mail you responded to was the one that began "Is there any technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a Tor user, or even an explanation of how this could occur?" - is that correct? If so, please tell me exactly where the accusations are about Arne as a person, because I've reread that email a few times and again just now, and I just don't see it. My criticism is of his arguments, not him as a person. Ian. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
On 05/26/2016 10:02 AM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 6:55 AM, Steve Dougherty st...@asksteved.com wrote: > I can understand if you're upset that Arne does not agree with you, but > I don't understand what you're doing here. Do you expect that if you > > berate Arne he will come around? > > > > > I expect that we can have a discussion based on facts and logic, during which > we > can disagree without being disagreeable, and after that discussion arrive at a > logical conclusion. This is how healthy teams operate. That's not what was happening. > You are being disrespectful. I'm not at > all suggesting that you aren't allowed to disagree, or be honest, but > > you seem to go about being honest by also being hurtful. > > > > > I do not believe I have been disrespectful, I have stated where I disagree > with > Arne and why. Arne began his email with an ultimatum that he would not use > Google Docs to participate in the process I'm trying to create. Was that not > disrespectful of my efforts to try to create a democratic process for > prioritizing our roadmap? > Am I not permitted to criticise Arne, but it is fine for him to nitpick > relatively trivial aspects of what I'm trying to do? Yes, this is what I mean. The critical distinction here is that between Arne and Arne's ideas. Discussing the ideas is the goal. What you see as Arne's failings as a person are not relevant to what I hope can be a discussion, not a debate or argument. > I feel like you are > approaching this with the goal of shutting down those who disagree with > > you, instead of collaborating and discussing with others to arrive at a > > reasonable solution to a problem. > > > > > I'm trying to create a democratic process for prioritizing our roadmap so that > we do not squander this $25k donation. Arne appears intent on fighting me at > every step of the way, his refusal to use Google Docs being just one example. > We have now spent hours of our time debating the Google Docs issue with people > instead of advancing the project, which must be really hilarious to any > opponent > of our project that's watching us. It reminds me of the film “The Life of > Brian”, in which the People's Front of Judea are so busy fighting with the > Judean People's Front that they forget about the Romans who are supposed to be > their common enemy. > I also note Steve that you do not even try to address the substance of the > disagreement, focusing exclusively on my tone. Do you agree with Arne that we > shouldn't use Google Docs? If so, what are your reasons? I don't want to elaborate on this here because it detracts from my primary point of discussing discussion. > Can we not have a debate based on facts and arrive at a logical conclusion at > the end of that debate? That's how things used to work, and it worked pretty > well. This sounds good, and would work well if it was what happened. The mail I responded to had a reasonable first paragraph discussing the idea at hand, and then started accusations about Arne as a person. On 05/26/2016 10:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Florent Daigniere < > nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote: >> >> Btw, >> >> I also disagree with using google-docs; the reason being: it requires >> registration to a 3rd party service whereas the alternatives (wiki or >> piratepad) don't. >> > > In that case you will be pleased to learn that Google Docs does not > require that you sign in to a Google account unless you require this > when you create the "share" link, which I did not. > > > (Did I deliver that disagreement too harshly?). I have no objections to the tone or content of this. It discusses only the idea and does not get into how having the idea might reflect on Florent. Thank you. - Steve signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Florent Daigniere < nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote: > > Btw, > > I also disagree with using google-docs; the reason being: it requires > registration to a 3rd party service whereas the alternatives (wiki or > piratepad) don't. > In that case you will be pleased to learn that Google Docs does not require that you sign in to a Google account unless you require this when you create the "share" link, which I did not. (Did I deliver that disagreement too harshly?). 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] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 14:02 +, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 6:55 AM, Steve Dougherty st...@asksteved.com > wrote: > I can understand if you're upset that Arne does not agree with you, > but > I don't understand what you're doing here. Do you expect that if you > > berate Arne he will come around? > > > > > I expect that we can have a discussion based on facts and logic, > during which we > can disagree without being disagreeable, and after that discussion > arrive at a > logical conclusion. This is how healthy teams operate. > > > You are being disrespectful. I'm not at > all suggesting that you aren't allowed to disagree, or be honest, but > > you seem to go about being honest by also being hurtful. > > > > > I do not believe I have been disrespectful, I have stated where I > disagree with > Arne and why. Arne began his email with an ultimatum that he would > not use > Google Docs to participate in the process I'm trying to create. Was > that not > disrespectful of my efforts to try to create a democratic process for > prioritizing our roadmap? Am I not permitted to criticise Arne, but > it is fine > for him to nitpick relatively trivial aspects of what I'm trying to > do? > I feel like you are > approaching this with the goal of shutting down those who disagree > with > > you, instead of collaborating and discussing with others to arrive at > a > > reasonable solution to a problem. > > > > > I'm trying to create a democratic process for prioritizing our > roadmap so that > we do not squander this $25k donation. Arne appears intent on > fighting me at > every step of the way, his refusal to use Google Docs being just one > example. > We have now spent hours of our time debating the Google Docs issue > with people > instead of advancing the project, which must be really hilarious to > any opponent > of our project that's watching us. It reminds me of the film “The > Life of > Brian”, in which the People's Front of Judea are so busy fighting > with the > Judean People's Front that they forget about the Romans who are > supposed to be > their common enemy. > I also note Steve that you do not even try to address the substance > of the > disagreement, focusing exclusively on my tone. Do you agree with Arne > that we > shouldn't use Google Docs? If so, what are your reasons? > Can we not have a debate based on facts and arrive at a logical > conclusion at > the end of that debate? That's how things used to work, and it worked > pretty > well. > Ian. > Ian Clarke > Btw, I also disagree with using google-docs; the reason being: it requires registration to a 3rd party service whereas the alternatives (wiki or piratepad) don'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] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
On Thu, May 26, 2016 6:55 AM, Steve Dougherty st...@asksteved.com wrote: I can understand if you're upset that Arne does not agree with you, but I don't understand what you're doing here. Do you expect that if you berate Arne he will come around? I expect that we can have a discussion based on facts and logic, during which we can disagree without being disagreeable, and after that discussion arrive at a logical conclusion. This is how healthy teams operate. You are being disrespectful. I'm not at all suggesting that you aren't allowed to disagree, or be honest, but you seem to go about being honest by also being hurtful. I do not believe I have been disrespectful, I have stated where I disagree with Arne and why. Arne began his email with an ultimatum that he would not use Google Docs to participate in the process I'm trying to create. Was that not disrespectful of my efforts to try to create a democratic process for prioritizing our roadmap? Am I not permitted to criticise Arne, but it is fine for him to nitpick relatively trivial aspects of what I'm trying to do? I feel like you are approaching this with the goal of shutting down those who disagree with you, instead of collaborating and discussing with others to arrive at a reasonable solution to a problem. I'm trying to create a democratic process for prioritizing our roadmap so that we do not squander this $25k donation. Arne appears intent on fighting me at every step of the way, his refusal to use Google Docs being just one example. We have now spent hours of our time debating the Google Docs issue with people instead of advancing the project, which must be really hilarious to any opponent of our project that's watching us. It reminds me of the film “The Life of Brian”, in which the People's Front of Judea are so busy fighting with the Judean People's Front that they forget about the Romans who are supposed to be their common enemy. I also note Steve that you do not even try to address the substance of the disagreement, focusing exclusively on my tone. Do you agree with Arne that we shouldn't use Google Docs? If so, what are your reasons? Can we not have a debate based on facts and arrive at a logical conclusion at the end of that debate? That's how things used to work, and it worked pretty well. 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] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 07:55 -0400, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On 05/25/2016 08:49 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide > b.de> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Core technical reasons: > > > > > > - It excludes those of our users who assume (not unreasonably) > > > that > > > Google might de-anonymize them. > > > > > Is there any technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a > > Tor > > user, or even an explanation of how this could occur? The Google > > Docs > > client code can be easily examined, so if Google were somehow doing > > this, > > wouldn't it be easy to see? > > > > In reality there is nothing other than your dislike of Google > > behind this > > concern. You're welcome to dislike Google if you wish, but you > > will need > > to make a better argument if you expect everyone else to adapt to > > your > > personal view, which is what you seem to be asking for. > > > > > > > > > > - It also excludes those who do not run Tor but only use Freenet > > > for > > > anonymous communication. > > > > > And how can such people anonymously use PiratePad, which is your > > preferred > > choice? It has exactly the same issue. > > > > > > > > > > - It does not work without Javascript. Many of our users disable > > > Javascript, especially on Tor. > > > > > Same for PiratePad, which is the choice you have advocated. > > > > > > > > > > - People who follow the mailing list cannot follow the discussion > > > and > > > development of the document. This makes the work intransparent > > > for > > > most of our community. > > > > > PiratePad also suffers from this problem, as would any practical > > solution > > that met our needs. > > > > > > > > > > - It is a non-free platform, so this workflow could be cut at any > > > time. > > > > > In the extremely unlikely event that Google suddenly shuts down > > Google > > Docs, then it will not be difficult to switch to another solution. > > > > These are all very weak arguments. > > > > > > > > > > Personal reason: > > > > > > When I told Ian about my reservations against using Google Docs, > > > essentially the reasons I gave here, the discussion got personal. > > > I > > > won’t go into details here, but it hurt. > > > > > > > > If it had not been for that, I would have followed a community > > > decision > > > about Google Docs, just like I did about using Github. However > > > this > > > crossed the point of being about being reasonable. That’s why my > > > decision not to use Google Docs here is final. > > > > > So you admit that your position here is not governed by technical > > arguments > > (a good thing, since those were not convincing), but rather by > > animosity > > towards me due to a perceived insult. I'm glad you made that clear > > to > > everyone. > > > > You have contributed very valuably to the project over the past few > > years > > Arne, and I sincerely hope that you continue to do-so, there really > > is no > > reason not to. > > > > But in this matter you aren't behaving constructively, and the > > project > > should not accede to unreasonable demands which you've just > > admitted are > > driven by personal animus towards me. > > > > The purpose of this project is to ensure that people have the > > freedom to > > communicate without fear of reprisal or censorship. I don't see > > how any of > > this serves that purpose. > I can understand if you're upset that Arne does not agree with you, > but > I don't understand what you're doing here. Do you expect that if you > berate Arne he will come around? You are being disrespectful. I'm not > at > all suggesting that you aren't allowed to disagree, or be honest, but > you seem to go about being honest by also being hurtful. It's > possible > to give feedback without making someone feel bad. I feel like you are > approaching this with the goal of shutting down those who disagree > with > you, instead of collaborating and discussing with others to arrive at > a > reasonable solution to a problem. > What about using the wiki instead? https://wiki.freenetproject.org/ 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] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
On 05/25/2016 08:49 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide > wrote: >> >> Core technical reasons: >> >> - It excludes those of our users who assume (not unreasonably) that >> Google might de-anonymize them. >> > > Is there any technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a Tor > user, or even an explanation of how this could occur? The Google Docs > client code can be easily examined, so if Google were somehow doing this, > wouldn't it be easy to see? > > In reality there is nothing other than your dislike of Google behind this > concern. You're welcome to dislike Google if you wish, but you will need > to make a better argument if you expect everyone else to adapt to your > personal view, which is what you seem to be asking for. > > >> - It also excludes those who do not run Tor but only use Freenet for >> anonymous communication. >> > > And how can such people anonymously use PiratePad, which is your preferred > choice? It has exactly the same issue. > > >> - It does not work without Javascript. Many of our users disable >> Javascript, especially on Tor. >> > > Same for PiratePad, which is the choice you have advocated. > > >> - People who follow the mailing list cannot follow the discussion and >> development of the document. This makes the work intransparent for >> most of our community. >> > > PiratePad also suffers from this problem, as would any practical solution > that met our needs. > > >> - It is a non-free platform, so this workflow could be cut at any time. >> > > In the extremely unlikely event that Google suddenly shuts down Google > Docs, then it will not be difficult to switch to another solution. > > These are all very weak arguments. > > >> Personal reason: >> >> When I told Ian about my reservations against using Google Docs, >> essentially the reasons I gave here, the discussion got personal. I >> won’t go into details here, but it hurt. > > >> If it had not been for that, I would have followed a community decision >> about Google Docs, just like I did about using Github. However this >> crossed the point of being about being reasonable. That’s why my >> decision not to use Google Docs here is final. >> > > So you admit that your position here is not governed by technical arguments > (a good thing, since those were not convincing), but rather by animosity > towards me due to a perceived insult. I'm glad you made that clear to > everyone. > > You have contributed very valuably to the project over the past few years > Arne, and I sincerely hope that you continue to do-so, there really is no > reason not to. > > But in this matter you aren't behaving constructively, and the project > should not accede to unreasonable demands which you've just admitted are > driven by personal animus towards me. > > The purpose of this project is to ensure that people have the freedom to > communicate without fear of reprisal or censorship. I don't see how any of > this serves that purpose. I can understand if you're upset that Arne does not agree with you, but I don't understand what you're doing here. Do you expect that if you berate Arne he will come around? You are being disrespectful. I'm not at all suggesting that you aren't allowed to disagree, or be honest, but you seem to go about being honest by also being hurtful. It's possible to give feedback without making someone feel bad. I feel like you are approaching this with the goal of shutting down those who disagree with you, instead of collaborating and discussing with others to arrive at a reasonable solution to a problem. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Core technical reasons: > > - It excludes those of our users who assume (not unreasonably) that > Google might de-anonymize them. > Is there any technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a Tor user, or even an explanation of how this could occur? The Google Docs client code can be easily examined, so if Google were somehow doing this, wouldn't it be easy to see? In reality there is nothing other than your dislike of Google behind this concern. You're welcome to dislike Google if you wish, but you will need to make a better argument if you expect everyone else to adapt to your personal view, which is what you seem to be asking for. > - It also excludes those who do not run Tor but only use Freenet for > anonymous communication. > And how can such people anonymously use PiratePad, which is your preferred choice? It has exactly the same issue. > - It does not work without Javascript. Many of our users disable > Javascript, especially on Tor. > Same for PiratePad, which is the choice you have advocated. > - People who follow the mailing list cannot follow the discussion and > development of the document. This makes the work intransparent for > most of our community. > PiratePad also suffers from this problem, as would any practical solution that met our needs. > - It is a non-free platform, so this workflow could be cut at any time. > In the extremely unlikely event that Google suddenly shuts down Google Docs, then it will not be difficult to switch to another solution. These are all very weak arguments. > Personal reason: > > When I told Ian about my reservations against using Google Docs, > essentially the reasons I gave here, the discussion got personal. I > won’t go into details here, but it hurt. > If it had not been for that, I would have followed a community decision > about Google Docs, just like I did about using Github. However this > crossed the point of being about being reasonable. That’s why my > decision not to use Google Docs here is final. > So you admit that your position here is not governed by technical arguments (a good thing, since those were not convincing), but rather by animosity towards me due to a perceived insult. I'm glad you made that clear to everyone. You have contributed very valuably to the project over the past few years Arne, and I sincerely hope that you continue to do-so, there really is no reason not to. But in this matter you aren't behaving constructively, and the project should not accede to unreasonable demands which you've just admitted are driven by personal animus towards me. The purpose of this project is to ensure that people have the freedom to communicate without fear of reprisal or censorship. I don't see how any of this serves that purpose. 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] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
Ian Clarke writes: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z4s0D1M9HL0xCrf1tdaKGm5U3-WJBwRdMSvyj975WaA/edit?usp=sharing > This document should be accessible via Tor for anonymous users. I will not contribute to any workflow which requires Google Docs. Core technical reasons: - It excludes those of our users who assume (not unreasonably) that Google might de-anonymize them. - It also excludes those who do not run Tor but only use Freenet for anonymous communication. - It does not work without Javascript. Many of our users disable Javascript, especially on Tor. - People who follow the mailing list cannot follow the discussion and development of the document. This makes the work intransparent for most of our community. - It is a non-free platform, so this workflow could be cut at any time. This is much more important here than for short drafting of a text for the website, because we’re actually trying to find a community decision. If we claim this to be democratic (as we do on the website), we cannot exclude a major part of our users. Personal reason: When I told Ian about my reservations against using Google Docs, essentially the reasons I gave here, the discussion got personal. I won’t go into details here, but it hurt. If it had not been for that, I would have followed a community decision about Google Docs, just like I did about using Github. However this crossed the point of being about being reasonable. That’s why my decision not to use Google Docs here is final. Ian is taking care of financial matters of Freenet, which I am very grateful for. He founded Freenet and did great work on it in the past, and I happily help carrying on the vision he drafted. But I will not let myself be insulted for disagreeing with his assessment of implementation details of the best way forward. I bring this here, because I am not the first who is angry about something similar. It is not how I want to work. 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] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
On Wed, May 18, 2016 2:35 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de wrote: Since the discussion seems to have ended, how about going to the next step? Good point - sorry, I've been distracted by my day-job. @Ian: Would you describe the next step? I've created a document here on which anyone should be able to make edits, please read the guidelines carefully first. There is a danger here for vandalism, I'm hoping that won't happen. If it does we'll need to switch to a more restrictive approach which will just waste everyone's time: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z4s0D1M9HL0xCrf1tdaKGm5U3-WJBwRdMSvyj975WaA/edit?usp=sharing This document should be accessible via Tor for anonymous users. Please spread the word to the various Freenet channels/forums. 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] next step? was: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas
Hi, Since the discussion seems to have ended, how about going to the next step? We seem to have the following 5 broad resource areas: * User Experience - Work on FProxy and installers to make them easier and more enjoyable to use * Security - Make Freenet more secure against attack * Technical debt - Stuff that will make future development faster * Outreach - Stuff that will help attract users, developers, and donors to Freenet (eg. the website) * New core features - Enable using Freenet for new kinds of tasks/usecases @Ian: Would you describe the next step? To keep the list easy to digest and the discussion focussed, I would like to suggest the requirement that specific tasks must be described in at most 3 lines with at most 80 characters per line. Best wishes, Arne hyazin...@emailn.de writes: > This is a good idea... sounds like a plan. > > Greetings, > Torben Lechner > > --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --- > Von: Arne Babenhauserheide > Datum: 06.05.2016 22:41:28 > An: hyazin...@emailn.de, Discussion of development issues > > Betreff: Re: [freenet-dev] Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas > >> Maybe replace “user friendliness” by “user experience”? >> >> >> hyazin...@emailn.de writes: >> >> > At first I had the same thought as you and Arne, but the current >> > description >> of "user friendliness" >> > made me change my mind and think that "design" is missing. >> >> > >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Torben Lechner >> > >> > --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --- >> > Von: Ian Clarke >> > Datum: 06.05.2016 16:43:48 >> > An: hyazin...@emailn.de >> > Betreff: Re: [freenet-dev] Planning process step #1: Broad resource >> areas >> > >> > + Design - Make Freenet more beautiful, and make Freenet feel and >> work better >> > >> > Thank you for the suggestion, but isn't that very similar to “user >> > friendliness”? >> >> >> >> -- >> Unpolitisch sein >> heißt politisch sein >> ohne es zu merken >> > ___ > Devl mailing list > Devl@freenetproject.org > https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- 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
