gnunet-developers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: Open questions regarding new messenger and secushare and organiz


From: Martin Schanzenbach
Subject: Re: Re: Open questions regarding new messenger and secushare and organization Was: Make GNUnet Great Again
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:54:49 +0900
User-agent: Evolution 3.38.1 (3.38.1-1.fc33)

On Sun, 2020-11-15 at 23:25 +0100, hyazinthe@emailn.de wrote:
> hello,
> 
> +1 @ what t3sserakt said.
> 
> GNUnet is a project of utter importance and especially valuable.
> Secushare is a project of utter importance and especially valuable.
> Both projects joining forces to a team up increases importance and
> value by magnitudes.
> Mutually realizing and accepting, that's why the team up happened in
> the first place.
> We need an internet replacement; one which is the amazing tool we
> thought we have with it, before realizing what we actually have are
> chains; one which strenghens our liberty/freedom - libre, secure,
> privacy-protecting - one which is like wings for us.
> GNUnet & secushare as a team are the best approach I've come across
> so far for building such an internet replacement.
> That's why I support both projects wherever I can.
> 
> The heated discussion in this thread gave me a lot more insight into
> what's going on than I've known so far. Still, towards these tensions
> I'm pretty much a by-stander. Being in this naive position, it feels
> a bit bold to even just say anything regarding that. But I still do
> it - just trying to help:
> If I understand that right, we wouldn't had a problem here, at all,
> in the first place, if 3 GNUnet key components on which secushare
> development highly depends on, would be just fine: CADET, core and
> transport.
> And as I got the impression, all these 3 components are in the
> process of being revised to fit like that, but that process is a ton
> of work and therefore lasts long.
> Development has to make fun, and has to be done fundamentally stone
> by stone - you don't just build a roof.
> I could imagine, that a good middle ground, a good way forward would
> be, if 2 things change:
> 1. Secushare people help GNUnet people more with development of
> CADET, core and transport.
> 2. GNUnet people focus their work more on paving the way for
> secushare people to do their secushare development in a way, which
> makes more sense, is more sustainable, and more fun. Maybe by a
> motivating one-by-one roadmap, finishing one corner stone after
> another for building a way for secushare people to move forward.
> Maybe something like, 'At first we fix core, then CADET, and then
> transport, and then all obstacles for secushare development are our
> of the way!'.

We do have a "hidden" roadmap (not 100% up to date anymore):
https://gnunet.org/en/roadmap.html

And the detailed issues can be found in mantis. The sheer number is
overwhelming though. Maybe I will update and publish the roadmap and
link it to mantis tags at some point.

BR

> 
> 
> We gotta hold together, that's what makes us strong, and appreciate
> eath other,
> Bastian Schmidt
> 
> 
> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: t3sserakt <t3ss@posteo.de>
> Datum: 15.11.2020 11:14:09
> An: gnunet-developers@gnu.org
> Betreff: Re: Open questions regarding new messenger and secushare
> and  organization Was: Make GNUnet Great Again
> 
> > On 15.11.20 10:13, carlo von lynX wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:36:21PM +0100, Christian Grothoff
> > > wrote:
> > 
> > > > > - Is "messenger" a part of "secushare"?
> > 
> > > > In my view, it's a fresh attempt to build something that might
> > > > be
> > 
> > > > considered part of / become part of the secushare vision. That
> > > > said,
> > I
> > > > think its premature given that messenger clearly is still
> > > > evolving,
> > and
> > > > secushare remains largely vaporware
> > > > (Secushare-people: do correct me if I am wrong here).
> > > Well, GNUnet remains largely vaporware and each time we tried to
> > > get
> > 
> > > a minor thing working in secushare we ran into fundamental issues
> > > on
> > 
> > > the GNUnet level that needed addressing first… your public
> > > announcement
> > 
> > > for 0.14 still provides no guarantees that CADET, core and
> > > transport
> > 
> > > will do their jobs - although nearly nothing can be built on top
> > > while
> > 
> > > that isn't the case.
> > > 
> > > > That's the key point: if someone maintains it, it can come
> > > > back.
> > 
> > > How can you expect that we maintain a project that would be a
> > > kind
> > > of Facebook replacement if the replacement for HTTPS still isn't
> > > reliably working? On the contrary, since you lured us into
> > > writing
> > so
> > > much code for a dysfunctional framework underneath, I consider it
> > > your social reponsibility to keep the code up to date through
> > > *your*
> > 
> > > API changes, and not us! *You* should maintain secushare! And do
> > > the
> > 
> > > best to motivate us to come back and work for you. We invested
> > > years
> > 
> > > into YOUR project and you call US vaporware after all of that?
> > 
> > As someone started joining secushare before working on GNUnet I
> > like to
> > remember everybody here that in the end it makes no difference to
> > distinguish between secushare or GNUnet being vaporware, because we
> > all
> > 
> > want to fix the same problem!
> > 
> > Calling secushare vapoware is not wrong, but it was no good idea to
> > do
> > so, without to be clear about the reasons for that!
> > 
> > From the release 0.14.0 news item:
> > 
> > "*only suitable for early adopters with some reasonable pain
> > tolerance"*
> > 
> > 
> > It is not only users, but also developers who need to have pain
> > tolerance, because this is no sprint but a marathon to get things
> > working. Our main problem is still resources, because it is not
> > easy to
> > find developers with the needed expertise and pain tolerance who
> > want to
> > 
> > work as a volunteer or for less money they could get working for
> > some
> > company with a lot of money.
> > 
> > So please - I can understand all the frustration, but we should go
> > on
> > together and work on those details that are needed to fix right
> > now.
> > 
> > Happy hacking!
> > 
> > t3ss
> > 
> 
> 
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]