On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 04:42:15 PM Florent Daigniere wrote: > "don't be strategic" > I've counted how many of your "points" got allocated to items that do > *not* have "WoT" or "Freetalk" in their description... and the grand- > total is ... 85 points out of 1000. I'm sure that none of this is > strategic coming from someone who's paid by the project to work on > both.
What you said sounds like "you're voting for things which you believe will make you earn money"? That's a strong criticism :( I definitely do not care about the money when voting like that, and I do hope that this can be proved with the following considerations: I've been with the project for 6 years as a volunteer before I was hired. My focus back then was always volunteering to get WoT and Freetalk done. This is publicly documented in the Git history on GitHub, look it up. It also has been discussed a lot on IRC. I did also not ask to be hired during that time, I only asked once at the end. So obviously as a non-paid person, I did truly consider WoT and FT important for over half a decade already, why else would I have volunteered on them? As a con, it surely wouldn't make any sense to work on something for 6 years [1] for free just because you plan to reap money. No, I did that because I think what Freenet offers currently as features is boring. Yes, that's hurtful, but we have to accept that users want more interesting things in 2016. Nobody cares about static websites anymore, that was fun in 1998. In fact, before I joined the project, I've tried Freenet numerous times and I was always disappointed and uninstalled it again. So I joined to fix what I felt was *missing* as a *user*. Now WoT+FT are still not finished, and thus I still hold on to my personal long-time opinion that we need to finish them. And if you give my document another chance and look more closely, you will notice that I don't even care that much about WoT+FT anymore: My main goal is to get a filesharing application done. WoT+FT shall merely be the dependency of that: It will be a lot faster to implement filesharing based on FT than on anything else we have. That's why I've voted 100 points for filesharing, and noted that WoT and FT are the dependency of that. And finally, I want filesharing not even because I like it personally, but because it is the #1 request from our users with 716 votes: https://freenet.uservoice.com (That link is also contained in the spreadsheets somewhere.) I really really hope this resolves the "you only want the money" criticism? I feel this is very strong criticism and I would be very very happy to show you that it doesn't apply. If you need any further information, please tell me :) > "don't consider development cost in your value allocation" > I've started compiling a list of the comments that you wrote that were > in direct contradiction with the above... and I've given up when I > realized that it wouldn't fit in an email people would read. Hell, some > of the task descriptions are in contradiction with it. It is difficult to reply to criticism if you do not tell us what you would like to criticize precisely?
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
