On Sun, 2020-11-15 at 23:25 +0100, hyazin...@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 <t...@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 > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
