Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Tuesday, August 02, 2016 08:16:15 PM Florent Daigniere wrote: > This has been started three months ago now... and there hasn't been any > visible progress (nothing on this mailing list) for the last two. > What's up? > > It really makes the project look bad. Ian was too busy to finish it for

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 18:58 +, Ian Clarke wrote: > I've written a proposal for how we can do this, based on my learnings > over a > decade and a half of managing software projects (mostly commercial). > Feedback from the core team has been positive so-far, with the main > objection > being

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal to make unit-tests in Freenet easier to implement

On 07/05/16 11:35, Ian Clarke wrote: > Hey Martin, > This sounds like a great idea. Classes should only require the dependencies > they > actually need, partially because it makes unit testing much easier, as you > point > out. > So if a large node object is being passed to classes that only use

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal to make unit-tests in Freenet easier to implement

On 07/05/16 11:10, Martin Byrenheid wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I've spend some time thinking about how to make it easier to test Freenet's > different subsystems, especially without having to instantiate the whole > Freenet Node class for almost every test. One possibly helpful idea that came

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal to make unit-tests in Freenet easier to implement

Hey Martin, This sounds like a great idea. Classes should only require the dependencies they actually need, partially because it makes unit testing much easier, as you point out. So if a large node object is being passed to classes that only use a small part of that object, then it's definitely an

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On 06/05/16 00:10, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > On Friday, May 06, 2016 12:33:12 AM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: >> At the current exchange rate, it would be 23.6 hours/week. >> This is the average of what I had delivered during the past few months of >> work. In other words, the $27500 was

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Thursday, May 05, 2016 11:51:17 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > So can I assume that, since the conversation went off on some weird tangent, > that everyone is comfortable with my proposal? Sorry, I don't want to block the procedure, was merely trying to help Arne with the numbers he didn't have. I

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

So can I assume that, since the conversation went off on some weird tangent, that everyone is comfortable with my proposal? On Thu, May 5, 2016 6:35 PM, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: On Friday, May 06, 2016 01:27:29 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Freitag, 6. Mai 2016, 00:33:12 schrieb

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Friday, May 06, 2016 01:27:29 AM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Freitag, 6. Mai 2016, 00:33:12 schrieb x...@freenetproject.org: > > You wouldn't have needed to blindguess them manually > > It wasn’t blindguessing. It was giving the numbers how Freenet can hire > peoplel without forcing them

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

Arne Babenhauserheide writes: > x...@freenetproject.org writes: > >> On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 10:03:03 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >>> As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks. Reasons: >>> >>> - We have money for ~20 of these. That’s a number we can easily handle. >>> -

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Wed, May 4, 2016 1:45 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de wrote: Ian Clarke writes:> Well, one important component of the allocation process is to start with an even > allocation of points between all tasks, Did I overlook that in the description? Yes you did, from my proposal:

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

x...@freenetproject.org writes: > On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 10:03:03 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks. Reasons: >> >> - We have money for ~20 of these. That’s a number we can easily handle. >> - Cost is very different from salary (by

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

Ian Clarke writes: > Well, one important component of the allocation process is to start with an > even > allocation of points between all tasks, Did I overlook that in the description? > As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks. > > The problem is that some things we could

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Wednesday, May 04, 2016 12:40:38 AM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > It might also be OK to have this be less than 25% until we have satisfied > our users with major new features being released. Nevermind, I am probably wrong with "less than 25%": I had only thought of the "code quality" part,

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 08:14:18 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > I agree that we can't be too granular with these tasks, if there are too > many then people will have trouble allocating intelligently between them. > However, I don't agree that if a task is less than a week's work that we > should

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 10:03:03 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks. Reasons: > > - We have money for ~20 of these. That’s a number we can easily handle. > - Cost is very different from salary (by roughly factor 2). Time isn’t. Our

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Tue, May 3, 2016 3:03 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de wrote:The intro shows values from 1 to 100, the later description uses 1 to 1000. Oops, fixed. I do not think 1000 points are useful in terms of limited volunteer time resources. How about making it 20? This then requires

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

Ian Clarke writes: > I've written a proposal for how we can do this, based on my learnings over a > decade and a half of managing software projects (mostly commercial). > Feedback from the core team has been positive so-far, with the main objection > being that it may be too elaborate for our

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Tue, May 3, 2016 2:14 PM, Michael Grube michael.gr...@gmail.com wrote: I think it can be implemented easily enough with intelligent use of Google Docs and a little bit of elbow grease, which I'm ok with providing if others can help.

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > I've written a proposal for how we can do this, based on my learnings over > a > decade and a half of managing software projects (mostly commercial). > Feedback from the core team has been positive so-far, with the main

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

I've changed my mind to support this! :) The 6 months of fundraising difficulties have left me in a state of very very high fear that the project may fail. My anxiety has lifted me into a state of perhaps somehow insane fear that a re-discussion of the project's goals could cause a failure as

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: FreeNS

Ximin Luo пишет: On 13/01/10 08:31, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: I think you've lost the reason why the original poster of this thread has proposed FreeNS, that was because it's cumbersome to give out USK keys to people, and it would be better to give some easy to remember name that would

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: FreeNS

On 14/01/10 14:58, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: You've lost the reason of the proposal precisely when you've made an assumption that you've stated above. The names are not needed to 'search' for anything, they are needed so that i can give people my freesite address. Let's say i'm going a

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: FreeNS

Ximin Luo пишет: On 12/01/10 19:31, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: Please propose a *decentralised* solution without reinventing KSK by using other key types. The wording of your reply suggests that you think that such a solution is intrinsically impossible. Do you, and why? KSK is not a

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: FreeNS

On 13/01/10 08:31, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: I think you've lost the reason why the original poster of this thread has proposed FreeNS, that was because it's cumbersome to give out USK keys to people, and it would be better to give some easy to remember name that would almost definitely

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: FreeNS

On 12/01/10 03:56, steve oliver wrote: - Implementation - Instead of linking to a specific node/computer like the DNS system does (which we don't want to do even if we could), it would be a redirect to an existing site inserted using an SSK, etc. It

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: FreeNS

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:56 PM, steve oliver mrstevem...@gmail.com wrote: I was thinking out loud in the chatroom earlier, and thought that it might help attract new users and bring enhanced usability if we had a way to support arbitrary but secure URLs in a similar way to the public DNS

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Google Summer of Code 2009

The deadline is tomorrow, please send applications through the SoC web app: http://socghop.appspot.com/ On Wednesday 01 April 2009 01:04:36 you wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote: On Tuesday 31 March 2009 18:49:58 Michael Grube wrote:

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Google Summer of Code 2009

On Tuesday 31 March 2009 18:49:58 Michael Grube wrote: Name: Michael Grube Email: michael.gr...@gmail.com Project Title: Automatic generation of Freesite indexes using the WoT concept Benefits to the Community: Manually generated freesite indexes have some obvious limits to how many

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for dealing with slow transfers

On Tuesday 13 January 2009 14:21, Matthew Toseland wrote: The current backoff changes seem to be making the problem worse and causing most of the network to be backed off, but it could just be related to different load at different times of day, so we'll give it a while longer. A proposal

Re: [freenet-dev] proposal: Thaw index as an fs allocation table and browser plugin as a CIFS filesystem mount tool

On Thursday 11 September 2008 00:51, pmpp wrote: Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Thursday 11 September 2008 00:04, pmpp wrote: Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Wednesday 10 September 2008 18:42, pmpp wrote: Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Saturday 06 September 2008 23:21, pmpp wrote:

Re: [freenet-dev] proposal: Thaw index as an fs allocation table and browser plugin as a CIFS filesystem mount tool

On Saturday 06 September 2008 23:21, pmpp wrote: hi, i have made a small cifs experiment based on alfresco jlan-4.0 ( gpl ) pure java on non windows , 2 jni dll on w32/64 using thawindexbrowser official plugin as code base : walk the xml tree and create an absolute path for indexed files:

Re: [freenet-dev] proposal: Thaw index as an fs allocation table and browser plugin as a CIFS filesystem mount tool

On Wednesday 10 September 2008 18:42, pmpp wrote: Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Saturday 06 September 2008 23:21, pmpp wrote: hi, i have made a small cifs experiment based on alfresco jlan-4.0 ( gpl ) pure java on non windows , 2 jni dll on w32/64known problem: cifs IO will block

Re: [freenet-dev] proposal: Thaw index as an fs allocation table and browser plugin as a CIFS filesystem mount tool

Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Wednesday 10 September 2008 18:42, pmpp wrote: Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Saturday 06 September 2008 23:21, pmpp wrote: hi, i have made a small cifs experiment based on alfresco jlan-4.0 ( gpl ) pure java on non windows , 2 jni dll on w32/64known

Re: [freenet-dev] proposal: Thaw index as an fs allocation table and browser plugin as a CIFS filesystem mount tool

On Thursday 11 September 2008 00:04, pmpp wrote: Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Wednesday 10 September 2008 18:42, pmpp wrote: Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Saturday 06 September 2008 23:21, pmpp wrote: hi, i have made a small cifs experiment based on alfresco jlan-4.0 ( gpl )

Re: [freenet-dev] proposal: Thaw index as an fs allocation table and browser plugin as a CIFS filesystem mount tool

Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Thursday 11 September 2008 00:04, pmpp wrote: Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Wednesday 10 September 2008 18:42, pmpp wrote: Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Saturday 06 September 2008 23:21, pmpp wrote: hi, i have made a small cifs experiment based on alfresco

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

Matthew Toseland wrote: On Wednesday 05 March 2008 14:09, David Sowder wrote: Reading through some old threads (catching up on some of the devl@ traffic I hadn't read yet), Matthew mentioned something that gave me an idea. Perhaps the seednodes could connect to each other, verifying

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

On Friday 07 March 2008 17:19, David Sowder wrote: Matthew Toseland wrote: On Wednesday 05 March 2008 14:09, David Sowder wrote: Reading through some old threads (catching up on some of the devl@ traffic I hadn't read yet), Matthew mentioned something that gave me an idea.

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

Reading through some old threads (catching up on some of the devl@ traffic I hadn't read yet), Matthew mentioned something that gave me an idea. Perhaps the seednodes could connect to each other, verifying each other as valid seednodes. If there are trust concerns with just anybody's box

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

On Thursday 17 January 2008 23:06, Michael Tänzer wrote: Michael Tänzer schrieb: Matthew Toseland schrieb: On Thursday 17 January 2008 03:23, Michael Tänzer (vid,smtp2) wrote: Matthew Toseland schrieb: As we probably don't want to run a node on our server itself (we could, but would it

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

On Friday 18 January 2008 18:41, Michael Tänzer wrote: Matthew Toseland schrieb: On Thursday 17 January 2008 23:06, Michael Tänzer wrote: Michael Tänzer schrieb: Matthew Toseland schrieb: On Thursday 17 January 2008 03:23, Michael Tänzer (vid,smtp2) wrote: Matthew Toseland schrieb: As

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Toseland schrieb: On Thursday 17 January 2008 23:06, Michael Tänzer wrote: Michael Tänzer schrieb: Matthew Toseland schrieb: On Thursday 17 January 2008 03:23, Michael Tänzer (vid,smtp2) wrote: Matthew Toseland schrieb: As we probably

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

On Thursday 17 January 2008 03:23, Michael Tänzer (vid,smtp2) wrote: Matthew Toseland schrieb: | It would be good to solve the verification problem without having to have | permanent connections from the seed server to the seed nodes. The problem is | the below doesn't do this: it only

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Tänzer schrieb: Matthew Toseland schrieb: On Thursday 17 January 2008 03:23, Michael Tänzer (vid,smtp2) wrote: Matthew Toseland schrieb: As we probably don't want to run a node on our server itself (we could, but would it have enough

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Toseland schrieb: On Thursday 17 January 2008 03:23, Michael Tänzer (vid,smtp2) wrote: Matthew Toseland schrieb: | It would be good to solve the verification problem without having to have | permanent connections from the seed server to

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

It would be good to solve the verification problem without having to have permanent connections from the seed server to the seed nodes. The problem is the below doesn't do this: it only verifies that the attacker is listening on the stipulated port, and that he runs one freenet node somewhere,

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for Seednode harvesting

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Toseland schrieb: | It would be good to solve the verification problem without having to have | permanent connections from the seed server to the seed nodes. The problem is | the below doesn't do this: it only verifies that the attacker is

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Don't calculate the overall key until ALL of a splitfile has been inserted

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [ snip long security argument ] PROPOSAL: We can improve security against a distant, moderately powerful attacker doing a key-based search by never starting to insert a layer of the splitfile pyramid until the layer below has been

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Don't calculate the ov erall key until ALL of a splitfile has been inser ted

On Saturday 22 December 2007 09:27, Volodya wrote: [ snip long security argument ] PROPOSAL: We can improve security against a distant, moderately powerful attacker doing a key-based search by never starting to insert a layer of the splitfile pyramid until the layer below has been

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Encrypt splitfiles randomly

On Friday 21 December 2007 06:18, Juiceman wrote: On Dec 20, 2007 9:01 PM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 21 December 2007 01:08, cbreak wrote: Matthew Toseland wrote: That is how it already works. There is nothing wrong with reusing previously inserted

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Encrypt splitfiles randomly

On Thursday 20 December 2007 02:00, Juiceman wrote: On Dec 19, 2007 6:19 PM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ snip long security argument ] PROPOSAL: Before we encode any splitfile we should encrypt the whole thing with a random key. The big advantage is that an attacker

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Encrypt splitfiles randomly

Matthew Toseland wrote: That is how it already works. There is nothing wrong with reusing previously inserted files, the best way to do it is probably to reinsert only the top part of the metadata, inside the container. (We *don't* do that). Referring to files via the previous edition is

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Encrypt splitfiles randomly

On Friday 21 December 2007 01:08, cbreak wrote: Matthew Toseland wrote: That is how it already works. There is nothing wrong with reusing previously inserted files, the best way to do it is probably to reinsert only the top part of the metadata, inside the container. (We *don't* do

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Encrypt splitfiles randomly

On Dec 20, 2007 9:01 PM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 21 December 2007 01:08, cbreak wrote: Matthew Toseland wrote: That is how it already works. There is nothing wrong with reusing previously inserted files, the best way to do it is probably to reinsert only

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Encrypt splitfiles randomly

On Dec 19, 2007 6:19 PM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ snip long security argument ] PROPOSAL: Before we encode any splitfile we should encrypt the whole thing with a random key. The big advantage is that an attacker will not be able to predict the keys being inserted, even if

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: change legacy build.xml to reflect current repository locations

* Jack O'Lantern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-29 14:52:02]: My reply to this message appears to have gone lost, so I'll try again: --- Florent Daignière [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've commited something in r16002. Thanks! But the auto-generated

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: change legacy build.xml to reflect current repository locations

* Jack O'Lantern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-26 16:10:32]: --- Florent Daignière [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Jack O'Lantern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-25 05:33:22]: Hi, currently, the official public freenet repository is svn://freenet.googlecode.com/svn, while the

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: change legacy build.xml to reflect current repository locations

* Jack O'Lantern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-25 05:33:22]: Hi, currently, the official public freenet repository is svn://freenet.googlecode.com/svn, while the sourceforge CVS repository is obsolete. I propose to change the legacy build.xml file to reflect this situation. The proposed new

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: change legacy build.xml to reflect current repository locations

--- Florent Daignière [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Jack O'Lantern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-25 05:33:22]: Hi, currently, the official public freenet repository is svn://freenet.googlecode.com/svn, while the sourceforge CVS repository is obsolete. I propose to change the legacy

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Ultra-Lightweight Passive Requests

On Monday 28 May 2007 06:44, Edgar Friendly wrote: Matthew Toseland wrote: If we receive the key, we send it (FNPSubscribeData[SSK]) to all the peers who are in the list of nodes for that key in the failure table, cache it, and delete the failure table entry. We don't send them all at

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Ultra-Lightweight Passive Requests

Matthew Toseland wrote: If we receive the key, we send it (FNPSubscribeData[SSK]) to all the peers who are in the list of nodes for that key in the failure table, cache it, and delete the failure table entry. We don't send them all at once: We have a queue of keys we currently want to

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Ultra-Lightweight Passive Requests

Matthew Toseland wrote: Benefits: - Significantly reduced load caused by polling. - Much simpler than any reliable subscription scheme. - Minimal API changes needed. - Apps can continue their polling behaviour, they can in fact expand it and e.g. poll outboxes, with minimal impact on the

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Ultra-Lightweight Passive Requests

On Saturday 26 May 2007 16:27, Michael Rogers wrote: Matthew Toseland wrote: Benefits: - Significantly reduced load caused by polling. - Much simpler than any reliable subscription scheme. - Minimal API changes needed. - Apps can continue their polling behaviour, they can in fact expand

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Ultra-Lightweight Passive Requests

On Friday 25 May 2007 18:57, Matthew Toseland wrote: Most of the below comes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Frost. I have made a few changes. It should be fairly easy to implement. If we get a request for a key, and it DNFs: - If the Subscribe flag is not set on the request, do nothing, otherwise:

Re: [freenet-dev] PROPOSAL: Ultra-Lightweight Passive Requests

One more tweak: We get a request. It's in the failure table. Consider which node we would route the request to. If the selected node is better than the one we routed to in the failure table, then let the request through. Combine this with request coalescing (already implemented) to avoid floods

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal - metadata for edition-based keys

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 03:32:38PM +1300, David McNab wrote: Metadata: Version Revision=1 EndPart Document [EMAIL PROTECTED]/sitename End Handling algorithm: n = 0 lastFound = NULL while true { nextFound = get([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sitename/+n) if

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 10:16:18PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: I have some free time, and would like to spend it being paid to work for the Freenet Project, which I am informed has the funds. Previously prominent developers - oskar and tavin - have been paid $2500 for approximately 2

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: ClientGet MetadataHint message.

On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:31:43 -0400 Gianni Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the current FCP implementation would be application writers have to handle metadata parsing for redirects themselves. This seems like an unreasonable burden, especially given that Oskar has already written a

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal: ClientGet MetadataHint message.

On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 08:31:43PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: With the current FCP implementation would be application writers have to handle metadata parsing for redirects themselves. This seems like an unreasonable burden, especially given that Oskar has already written a metadata

SUBJECT: RE: [Freenet-dev] Proposal for the Near Future (Searching, CHKs and encryption ... oh my!)

> FROM: Scott G. Miller > DATE: 04/19/2000 14:46:45 > SUBJECT: RE: [Freenet-dev] Proposal for the Near Future > (Searching, CHKs > > I`m not sure if I`m following exactly, but it sounds like you > want to >