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

[t3sserakt]

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

OpenPGP_0x524982A0100F7490.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature