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

[hyazinthe]

Hello,

well, there we go, great starting point... *inspecting & pondering* 
additionally considering Carlo's and t3sserakt's last postings, it looks to me 
like best probably really would be if now GNUnet people and secushare people 
together focus on roadmap point "TNG: Transport rewrite" - apparently this is 
the one remaining main issue hindering sustainable secushare development, 
additionally it's the next to be done point in the list, anyway, and already in 
active development. So, we're almost there; it's not a distant, elusive, 
uncertain thing in the far future. And the more developers gather their 
activities around this point, the faster this decisive box gets ticked.
Of course, developing secushare on application level would be much more fun for 
you, secushare people, but consider: You need some kind of base, of fundament, 
of infrastructure, on which you build secushare upon. And if there wasn't 
something like TNG Transport, Core or CADET, then you had to do it from scratch 
for yourself, anyway. So, consider these things as part of secushare and a 
valuable head start saving you effort.

@ t3sserakt:
I'm a regular, still reader of the meeting protocols. My limited ressources 
only allow me to do irregular, small contributions to GNUnet. Things like this 
mediating e-mail, for example.


Happy hacking,
Bastian Schmidt

--- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
Von: Martin Schanzenbach <mschanzenbach@posteo.de>
Datum: 16.11.2020 02:54:49
An: hyazinthe@emailn.de, gnunet-developers@gnu.org
Betreff: Re: Re: Open questions regarding new messenger and secushare and  
organization Was: Make GNUnet Great Again

> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>