On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:39 PM, adrelanos <adrela...@riseup.net> wrote: > Runa A. Sandvik: >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Nadim Kobeissi <na...@nadim.cc> wrote: >>> I disagree with the Tor Project pushing for a StackExchange that is limited >>> to Tor, when a StackExchange for Anonymity Technology doesn't exist as a >>> whole. I would prefer that a SE for Anonymity software is established that >>> includes Tor as well as other solutions such as I2P. As it stands right >>> now, Tor looks like it's trying to monopolize any possible Anonymity SE, >>> and that's not okay. >>> >>> There is a thread here that echoes similar concerns: >>> http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/10705/why-limit-this-to-tor >> >> Nadim, I said this on Twitter and I will say it here too; the right >> place for this discussion is on the Stack Exchange proposal page. > >> It >> is not up to the Tor Project to decide what goes and what does not on >> this page, it is up to the community. > > That contradicts what Nick initially replied (first reply in this thread).
Stack Exchange proposals and pages are very much community driven. We need help from the community to make our page a success. There is a discussion on our proposal page about whether we should limit the page to Tor-related questions or not; http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/10705/why-limit-this-to-tor. I agree with Nick's statement about seeing how things develop and revisit the question later. I am concerned that including other anonymizing networks and tools, such as Freenet and I2P, will make the site too broad. I would also like to encourage you to comment on the proposal page instead of the tor-talk mailing list. The proposal page is a good place for a discussion about what the page should and should not be. -- Runa A. Sandvik _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
