On Tuesday, November 03, 2015 08:38:06 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > I don't think censorship is the answer :)
Yes, you're right, it is valid to question whether this is censorship. I also wondered after I sent the mail. However, I do think it is not: There is a difference between the right to speak freely, and the right to speak to a particular person or group of persons. While it is a perfectly valid desire to give everyone the right to speak freely in the public sphere, such as on Freenet; nobody would accept for example giving religious missionaries the right to enter your house at any time and try to convert you to their religion. It is rather desirable to allow people to request someone to not speak to them in particular, or at least to not seek them in their private property to do so. Same thing can happen here: We don't need to accept religious missionaries of the latest programming language to use *our own* servers to talk to us about how the lunar cycle indicates that we have to shift away from Java :) People could be perfectly allowed to use our anonymous forum system implementations to talk about rewrites; just not in our "house" (= lists / IRC) please. After all, the lists and channels have been specifically set up for us to "live" in just like a house: Due the project's global nature, there cannot be an office for the life of the project to happen in. So instead the lists / IRC have the purpose of allowing efficient development (= the "life") of the project, and so we shouldn't be constantly disturbed by such stuff. > Look, anyone can join the mailing list and can suggest whatever they want. > You can ignore them (probably the best option). If someone feels like > responding they can, but just because something is generating a discussion > thread does *not* mean that it's going to result in some dramatic change in > direction. As an employee, I feel obliged to listen to the community: Even as volunteers, they're my co-workers. Volunteering is a honorable thing, so they should get the right of having communication with me. Thus, I *must* at least read what happens on the list, even if I don't reply. So it can block my development time even if I don't like it. Hence, the question arises of whether we should block certain topics which over many years have been shown to be the biggest hindrance to productivity. Also, there is the psychological effect of destroying the motivation of everyone who reads those threads, including the volunteers. > Freenet has been around a *long* time, and we have a 16-year track record > of *not* making hasty and dramatic changes to project direction. That's > not going to change any time soon. > > That's not to say that we shouldn't be willing to consider out-of-the-box > ideas, but there is a big difference between considering something and > actually doing it. :) Well, please just notice that even only talking about certain stuff can be highly stressful for people who are emotionally invested into something. I certainly had some difficult in falling asleep last night... But I appreciate that you're trying to contribute a lot recently! :) Let's just please check off the "ditch everything we have" idea as not necessary since Freenet apparently is working for many people (fetching forum posts for me right now!); and we also haven't encountered any unsolvable technical goals with how it is. Greetings -- hopstolive (keyword for Ians spam filter)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
