> > Only if the majority of the community agrees, this change should be > implemented
Have you ever actually run a company, organization, or significant project? It really doesn't sound like it. On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 1:59 PM Marek Küthe <m...@mk16.de> wrote: > Hello, > > I am a Freenet user and also wanted to speak up. > > <irony>Since I have no position within Freenet, you can simply ignore > the email.</irony>. > > Everything I say here is my personal opinion. I do not want to > personally insult, abuse or otherwise verbally hurt anyone. If anyone > feels personally attacked, I am sorry. I will use the first names of > the persons in the following, because I consider this as usual in the > internet. I do not mean to imply that I disrespect anyone. > > 1) Major changes in a concept or in a program (I count the name change > to it) should be discussed in the Commuity. There should be factual > arguments exchanged. Only if the majority of the community agrees, this > change should be implemented. This is something that makes community > projects. Even if you don't count Freenet as a community project, the > current developers should agree. As far as I have noticed, this is > currently not Ian, but rather Arne. > > 2) Transparency is part of a good FLOSS project. Not giving information > about donations or decision making process is wrong. > > The process like the decision has not been presented transparently. It > was only said that privately over a longer period of time, with Arne > was spoken, but without his consent to achieve. > > Of course, it always depends on the project, but I know it so that > always first the opinions of several people are obtained before a > decision is discussed. As far as I have noticed, only Ian and Arne were > involved, which have referred to mutual points of view. In my opinion > it would have made sense (and still does) to get the opinions of more > people and make a decision based on that. If you don't want to ask any > person from the community, you can take for example every person who > has committed to the project in the last years. > > 3) I think the real identity of people does not count. Even a > pseudonymous person can be a member of a community. Their votes should > be counted the same as those of non-anonymous members. > > 4) > > a) I don't know if it's just my subjective perception: I think Ian > contradicts himself in parts of his statements. On the one hand he > says that he likes to answer questions, but he doesn't always > answer factually. > > b) Here's my feeling: Ian announced it on the Mailling list. There > was strong resistance to it. First there was factual discussion, > but when the arguments ran out, there were personal attacks. This > to me is a sign of desperation. > > 5) I think a name change will greatly confuse future users: > > a) There are many documentations (some of them very old) which are > not updated. If someone finds a documentation for Freenet and it is > about Fred and not about Locutus, this can lead to confusion. > > b) If no one from the community or the developers agrees, how > should something be implemented? As far as I can see, this would > rather mean that there will be a fork of the Freenet project. > > 6) Is Freenet a mission or a software? Personally, I think it is > software - as most people probably do. For example, Freenet is also > described as software on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet and > https://geti2p.net/en/comparison/freenet and not as a mission. If it is > a mission, it would have made sense to clarify this early on and not > wait until it is crucial. Even the website https://freenetproject.org/ > talks about a platform, therefore a kind of software, and not about a > mission. > > Personally, I have always seen the mission as the background to why > Freenet was developed. > > 7) I personally find the name Locutus very nice and would also be very > confused if it was suddenly called Freenet. Experience has shown that a > project is not evaluated by name, but by content. > > 8) One way to get clarity about the discussion now would be for example > to talk to the users one in IRC or alternatively to write to the > committers and ask what they think. I think based on their opinion a > judgement should be made and not based on the opinion of a few people > (or even one). Ian has mentioned many times that users do not speak on > behalf of the community. While it is difficult to determine something > like that, there are definitely some possibilities: One could contact > the users of Freenet via Sone or IRC and get their opinion. > > Furthermore, I think that such a decision and thus the change will > ultimately be implemented by the developers of the software. If the > developers decide against it, there is a) the possibility to accept > this or b) to make a fork. With a) you can clearly see at Freenet that > the developers do not agree with it. b) could only make Ian. Then there > would be a Freenet with the developers, which is up to date and a > one-time snapshot from Ian with the name "Freenet Classic". If anyone > here sees another possibility, I would be interested. > > I would be happy if I am not called an "idiot", "child" or the like. > > Greetings > > -- > Marek Küthe > m...@mk16.de > er/ihm he/him > -- Ian Clarke Founder, The Freenet Project Email: i...@freenet.org <i...@freenetproject.org>
