I second that motion!
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Michael Rogers <[email protected]>wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hellekin, thanks for that much needed intervention. I agree that "What > is it you want to achieve?" is the question we should ask ourselves. I > think we'll discover a surprising amount of agreement in our answers. > > Answering for myself, I want to support freedom of expression, freedom > of association, and the right to a private life. I don't think current > communication systems support those things well enough, so I want to > build communication systems that support them better. I hope we're all > more or less in agreement there. > > Where I think we differ is on the question of means. Some of us have > been disagreeing on that question, more or less vocally, since we > first met, and I don't expect we'll ever reach consensus. > > THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FINE. > > We don't have to agree about means. We don't have to find one > approach, or one project, that we can all get behind and push. We can > and should look at the problem from many angles, try many approaches > in parallel, fork and merge, imitate and appropriate, reuse pieces we > found on the scrapheap. THAT'S HOW SHIT GETS BUILT. Not by bickering > about what "we" should be doing, but by each of us doing something. > > Which means it's time for me to shut up and write some code. > > Cheers, > Michael > > On 20/11/13 16:17, hellekin wrote: > > "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room! What is > > going on here? I demand an explanation." -- President Muffley, in > > Dr. Strangelove > > > > Interestingly, the conversation we're having on the GNU consensus > > and the SocialSwarm mailing lists illustrate a critical point of > > our struggle for privacy on the Internet: that the technology is > > secondary to politics. > > > > When politics does the right thing, then technology can apply; > > when politics goes wrong, whatever the technology, politics will > > try and mussel it. > > > > The workshop at 30C3 is--in my remote understanding--mostly about > > raising a common technical front for most-private-possible > > implementations, to short-circuit politics gone wrong. There is > > an emergency on that front, as politics is way off the mark > > regarding how user's privacy is constantly violated in electronic > > communications. So we need not only to re-establish political > > control, but also provide technically sound counterparts to the > > will-to-watch-and-listen that all the politicians without exception > > have been showing. > > > > I wish there was a bit more discernment in the reactions of all > > parties involved regarding the objectives of our efforts. This > > lack of dialogue is counter-productive and no, I'm not interested > > in whose fault is it. We're not kids. Just pull yourselves > > together and stop whining. What is it you want to achieve? > > > > == hk > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSjQceAAoJEBEET9GfxSfMItcIAIy98uRGCs5xSFUUAy0VXCkZ > FgbbjF3kCu2XMrrg0/EqtG+ldc2eNuoKrU9SbOtB5d/IjWEqSrOtoQXYKbSQUMRs > 6LW6aWkElVX3O9K8J4T94EvTgH3HDg6Za+nM2n3DZgqov9NYrRbsOhJn7A/W85yb > KWH9mgLqBhcJePrubh7A1OUiucs9izPCaKDaBPQEdaZP1ARvXBOCwQRJKRKyw0Pq > bvSgfupj5LZ1HwZ1VYPLe0mFOFF9ZdJXcfva3f7o4NISly0jVEZiP6XUe0GAIz5+ > lSbQ1IqsObOkyQg9UUyKW7+PvJzZwo/YijxOW9Kfs2TGA2ApIvq6x/nDCLhsqUw= > =bRa+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > SocialSwarm mailing lists: https://socialswarm.net/en/participate/ > Websites: https://socialswarm.net/ https://wiki.socialswarm.net/ > Liquid Feedback: https://socialswarm.tracciabi.li/ > Digitalcourage, Bielefeld, Germany [email protected] >
