Re: Re: Open questions regarding new messenger and secushare and organization Was: Make GNUnet Great Again

[hyazinthe]

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 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
>