On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Toad wrote: > It IS called unstable you know.
Dude. That's pretty dense. Was doing this sudden, forced fork discussed? I mean, it seems like most people here agree that it's a good idea, so what would have been the harm in throwing out the idea on devl and giving it a day for discussion? It's like you were worried about people objecting, so you did it in stealth so that you'd rip all those nodes out of The Freenet and put them to work in this fork freenet. You (Toad) and whoever few also agreed to this beforehand have basically taken control of everyone's node without permission, inflicting, in the process, irreversible damage (removal of the routing table). I understand that this is the unstable branch we're talking about. But, "It IS called unstable you know" works if someone's node crashes. That's what unstable means. This forced fork doesn't have a damned thing to do with the node being unstable. Running an "unstable" node shouldn't mean giving control of it to a small core of developers. And if it does, it should have been discussed beforehand so that people could (implicitly or explicitly) agree to it, or forego the upgrading. We *are* talking about a group of people generally keen on privacy issues. Unleashing NGR on the network and hosing everything was a mistake. There's no other network out there of Freenet's style with Freenet's size. Managing this network is still largely virgin territory. We can forgive ourselves for screwing that up. But that should be all the more reason to exercise better care in the future, which, apparently, is not what happened here. Please. In the future can we be given sufficient forewarning if things are going to significantly change? And if someone doesn't like the way things have gone, can you at least give them a fair explanation, and withhold the disingenuousness? -todd _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
