Great ideas from Toad and you. But there is one big problem: we are quite late in the development cycle. We wanted to finish a working version till Christmas. Your new ideas would mean to make a big step backward and start another design from scratch (however, there isn't no design yet for the new ideas, only problems ;) ).
When we containue as planned we wil release something that is surely not compatible with the new ideas. And clients will use the new interface and implement it the way you don't want. So the question is: start again with new design, or complete something that works soon? Or is there a way for both? On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 17:36, Evan Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Matthew Toseland > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Currently Freetalk duplicates - or is planned to duplicate in the near >> future - most of the functionality of the Web of Trust plugin e.g. it will >> have identity pages with message counts etc. The plan is/was to hide the Web >> of Trust plugin and just have everything under the Discussion menu. >> >> However, there are two additional plugins under heavy development which use >> WoT: >> - digger3's WoT-based IRC system. This uses WoT for spam-resistant discovery. >> - Artefact2's FlogHelper blog tool, which uses an identity from WoT to >> simplify key management and eventually to avoid the need to announce the >> site and to tie in with Freetalk for feedback. >> >> Plus, hopefully: >> - infinity0's distributed searching functionality in Library. >> - evanbd's Fritter microblogging app. >> - Private messaging functionality in Freetalk or a new WoT-based Freemail >> version. > > So far I've been successful at slowly convincing digger3 to implement > most of the protocol-level ideas in my Fritter draft spec. I'm > hopeful that the two overlap enough that (eventually) the only > difference between Freenet-IRC and Fritter would be the interface. > Conceptually, this is fairly easy: both are a collection of short > messages posted by users, and both need to solve the problem of low > latency messages without insane amounts of polling. The same > related-links structure from Fritter works well with IRC. IMHO you > can treat IRC as simply a different interface to a subset of the > Fritter functionality: IRC messages must have exactly one hashtag, > which is the name of the IRC channel. (Then there's all the channel > moderator stuff like banning and topics, but I suspect that gets done > in a decentralized fashion that amounts to individual clients paying > attention to what the moderator publishes.) > > So I'm hopeful that digger3 will implement most or all of the Fritter > functionality while I continue trying to figure out how to take > meaningful statistics, and that at most it would just be a few changes > to the IRC plugin. > >> >> And probably more in future. >> >> Two basic problems here: >> 1. Code duplication: All these apps will need to duplicate much of >> Freetalk's duplicated WoT stuff (e.g. nagging the user if their identity >> hasn't been announced, setting trust etc). Most of them don't gain much >> benefit from this. >> 2. The same identities will be reused for multiple applications, and it >> should be easy to go from one to the next. > > I'm against code duplication, and I'm strongly against have different > UIs that do the same thing -- especially if changing something in one > UI means it changes in the other! I'm also in favor of reusing > identities -- publishing a flog under the same SSK I use to insert > Freetalk messages and IRC messages is a good thing. > > Note that this brings up the past discussion of trust contexts. My > recollection of that is we decided there was no reliable way to apply > trust ratings outside of the context they came from (when they come > from other people, that is -- if I trust / distrust a person locally, > it probably does make sense to apply that to all contexts). Any > unified UI would need to handle this properly. (And no, I don't have > any good suggestions for how. I'm also skeptical that it can be > meaningfully simplified and retain its usefulness.) > >> >> IMHO the solution to both problems is to keep the Web of Trust plugin >> visible, and make it easy to use. We might want to rename it ("Anonymous >> Friends"? Any other ideas?). It is essentially an anonymous social >> networking system: Each user has 1) various applications, and 2) trust >> relationships with other users. > > I dislike overloading the word "friend" between darknet peers and > on-Freenet identities. I propose "contacts" for the latter. > >> >> So, the profile page for a Known Identity should have links (and possibly >> detailed information) for each of the user's contexts. So for Freetalk, >> there would be how many messages he has posted, possibly a list of recent >> messages and/or commonly posted to boards, and/or a link to a page in >> Freetalk containing such information. For FlogHelper, there would be a link >> to the identity's one and only flog. For private messaging, there would be >> the ability to send a private message (whether by a link or inline). And so >> on. >> >> We would keep the existing trust setting functionality, and we would have a >> similar page for each of our Own Identities. In fact, we would probably only >> need one menu item for Web of Trust, which would be a merger of Own >> Identities with Known Identities: A list of Your Anonymous Identities, click >> on one to go to its profile page, with the option to add more. >> >> The big gain is that you can find a message on Freetalk, click on its author >> and send him a private message, change his trust levels, read his flog, chat >> with him in real time, search or browse his published files etc. This makes >> the Web of Trust plugin both useful and easy to use. > > I agree, this would be excellent! > >> >> We should be able to set the trust level from the own identity which is >> logged in to the identity whose profile page we are looking at *on that >> page*. We should probably also have some indication of how much we trust the >> other identities listed on that page: although this complicates the UI, it >> is very important practically IMHO. >> >> As p0s has rightly pointed out, when we go from Freetalk to a specific >> identity's page, our main concern is him in the context of Freetalk: We need >> to be able to see how many messages he has posted, and how many messages >> those who trust him have posted, as well as their trust levels etc. The >> current plan is to implement this page in Freetalk, fetch the data we need >> from WoT, add what we know from Freetalk, and show a Freetalk-focused page >> on that user. We can continue to do this, we just need to fetch a little >> more from WoT: The links to the other apps. However I expect that most >> WoT-based plugins will just use the WoT identity page. > > Click the name, get a freetalk-specific page that also has a link to > "view more about this contact" or something that shows the full WoT > page? That would also provide other application-specific links. > > Evan Daniel > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > [email protected] > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -- __________________________________________________ GnuPG key: (0x48DBFA8A) Keyserver: pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de Fingerprint: 477D F057 1BD4 1AE7 8A54 8679 6690 E2EC 48DB FA8A __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
