On Saturday 14 November 2009 16:47:27 [email protected] wrote: > 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 ;) ).
I'm not sure that is true. The mentioned code duplication in Freetalk hasn't been implemented yet afaik, and there are at least two WoT-based plugins making rapid progress other than Freetalk, hence the issue coming up in the first place. > > 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? I am not sure that there is a fundamental problem here, isn't this mostly a matter of interfaces and of stuff that hasn't been implemented yet such as the Freetalk UI to WoT? > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
