Re: Financial allocation poll stage 3

Matthew Toseland <mjt92-KWPb1pKIrIJaa/[email protected]> Sun, 28 Aug 2016 19:30:54 +0100
Newsgroups	gmane.network.freenet.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
On 28/08/16 19:23, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On 02/08/16 23:47, [email protected] wrote:
>> Hereby we begin the 3rd stage of the financial allocation poll.
>>
>> You may participate by filling your votes in to this spreadsheet and
>> mailing it back:
>> https://github.com/xor-freenet/freenet-money-poll/archive/2016-stage3.zip
>>
>> It has been created with LibreOffice but may hopefully as
>> well work with OpenOffice and any Microsoft Office version greater than or
>> equal to 2007 SP2.
>>
>> With complex file formats like spreadsheets, it may be possible that private
>> data such for example as your username or hostname leaks into the file. If
>> you are concerned about that, you can:
>> 1. Open the ODS file with a ZIP tool and review the plain text files it
>> actually consists of.
>> 2. Send back a CSV file instead. CSV is a plain text
>> file format so you can review it with any text editor. For LibreOffice,
>> instructions on how to export a CSV can be found at:
>> https://help.libreoffice.org/Calc/Importing_and_Exporting_CSV_Files
>>
>> As almost 3 months have passed since the DuckDuckGo donation, we would like
>> to continue to the next stage quickly - so please vote within 1 week.
>>
>> Thank you!
> I believe the voting was extended to today, so I attach my votes.
>
> I am currently somewhat detached from the project, partly due to legal
> issues I am seeking to clarify, partly because I believe we have missed
> our opportunity. But another may arise in a few decades' time and it's
> still worth trying to build something.
>
> As I have mentioned in another thread, many of the suggestions are
> technically illiterate, some are already accomplished, and the relative
> sizes vary enormously. Asking us not to take into account the technical
> difficulty of each task when prioritizing arguably makes it more
> difficult rather than less difficult. E.g. search is a major research
> project - but approximations that are usable for limited sizes, e.g. for
> sub-communities within Freenet, are much more feasible.
>
> Plus tasks overlap or appear in multiple categories... But I was busy
> when this was being discussed... My point is take my answers with a
> large pinch of salt as you would anyone else's. Right now I'm not
> contributing, though I hope to do so in future. Also please don't stick
> rigidly to the over-precise descriptions of the tasks, very often a
> better way to do it is already on the bug tracker!
>
> There are also several important missing points: There's lots we could
> do on performance (e.g. bloom filter sharing and equivalents), and other
> stuff, e.g. deploying ArneBab's fix for the fundamental security issues
> in darknet.
>
> In particular there's lots of code that just hasn't been merged, or that
> needs finishing. For example, what's Icicle? Yet another mobile app to
> make darknet connections easier? How many does that make now? Are either
> of them usable? Do either of them have a reasonable security model?
> Personally I dislike the idea of using texts to set up connections -
> bumping is much preferable. So I've given that one 0. But we DO need to
> get this sorted out somehow. Yet another example is FOAF - it's not just
> about *finding* friends, it's about darknet performance, connectivity
> for invites, *and* finding friends... All the stuff on FOAF and invites
> is on the bug tracker in great detail.
>
> I also disagree with the implications of the language-related
> suggestions. Sure, we always need to make things clearer. But we can't
> entirely avoid jargon. Twitter and Facebook have lots of jargon. Jargon
> isn't necessarily a bad thing per se. Of course you need to be careful
> with it - define it, but don't force people to look stuff up!
>
> Fewer words is not always clearer. And unfortunately one of Freenet's
> fundamental problems is the way its developers and its users see the
> world are irreconcilably different. This makes things like bootstrapping
> hard. But we've worked on that over the years and come up with
> reasonable compromises; there is space to do useful stuff.
>
> Re legal stuff, do we know that "some users were completely innocent"?
> If there is a genuine issue here we can probably get help for free by
> working with people like EFF...
>
> My two cents, in a rather scattered "everything" form to offset some
> other people's contributions... :)
>
> Hope it works out!
One point about protocol here:

Clearly we can't *do* "everything" for $20K. Ultimately if there is no
clear victor, somebody will have to choose a set of stuff for our paid
developer(s) to work on, based on the votes but also informed by some
estimate of difficulty. I guess that's the next stage...

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 819 B)