On Sunday, November 27, 2016 06:48:38 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 12:30 PM, x...@freenetproject.org > > First of all, I *am* completely willing to do these difficult decisions. > > > > Just not as a volunteer-looking-to-be-hired, the job decision has to > > happen first. > > So propose objective criteria to weed out bad votes, and then stick to those > objective criteria.
OK well I can offer to wait for a week for people to reply to this thread here; and if they're in favor of finishing the poll as well, then I will just decide the open questions and put out the results like that. If anyone then complains about me not being supposed to decide this you can still reply to that then I suppose. > > My mail was precisely intended as a request for what you're asking for > > here > > - I'd like to call the shots again. > > > > Are the 50 hours/month I spend on Freenet currently sufficient to count as > > "enthusiasm" ? :) > > You only seem interested in working on WoT, which is only one component of > Freenet. The $25k donation was for the entire project, not just one > component of it. Oh that's a very big misunderstanding! :( I don't care about WoT at all. I'm actually fed up with it on a certain level. I primarily joined Freenet to work on Freetalk. Back then I was told that WoT can and should be used for it, so I did. Unfortunately the person who originally invented it left the project; and left it in a state which was completely unsuitable to power Freetalk. It was so slow that Freetalk just broke. And for example there was no thread synchronization at all. It really was just a skeleton. So I *had* to work on it; and still have to. It's not fun, it's a duty. I would love to quit doing that and move on to our #1 uservoice request of filesharing; but filesharing needs Freetalk, and Freetalk needs WoT. (And besides, there are already 16 000 lines of code from me in fred: https://github.com/freenet/fred/graphs/contributors ) > I also feel it is a conflict of interests for the person > that gets paid to work to also be the one that decides what to work on. > Wouldn't we all want that job? Well, I precisely started this thread because I didn't wanna do it implicitly by doing the decisions about poll participation. And discussion with the team *was* a big focus for me previously, just not in the poll fashion but in the "we meet at the office like regular workers and discuss like that" way. > And this is exactly the problem, the lack of transparency. People shouldn't > have to loiter in a IRC room just to have visibility into how decisions are > being made and why. IRC just happens to be the place with the highest traffic we have. Where else should we discuss things if not in the most used communication channel? It's an open channel, anyone can join, even using an applet on the website. Are you perhaps mixing up a "lack of transparency" with your lack of time to read IRC? > Honestly, the fact that your proposal is that we spend the donation to pay > you to do whatever you decide to do is very self serving, and it's hard not > to question your motives. You're basically asking to get paid to do > whatever you want, which mostly seems to be to work on your own subproject, > WoT, with little oversight or accountability. First of all, please notice I would be happy to follow a poll. The uservoice poll. Which wants filesharing. Which I have been working towards for years, in particular for 6 years without any payment. Beyond that, please notice I do NOT want to decide to do "whatever" I want: I have promised a *DAILY* progress report to the team, and discussion with them. It feels like you're ignoring the existence of our very reliable and active core volunteers just because you don't have the time to read their efforts. They *DO* reply very reliably to IRC discussion, and if they think something I am doing is wrong, they will - excuse me - shut me the fuck down. They can get *VERY* serious if someone does questionable things. Just look at how you've been argued at on this mailing list, do you think this doesn't happen on IRC? :) Maybe ask Matthew for how often he has been peer reviewed by the insistence of the folks on IRC. He did the job like that for 10 years, and it worked very well - to the level where I feel very sorry for him that he even had to endure this level of constant excessive criticism. It must have been crushing for him sometimes. So there have always been control mechanisms for well over 10 years, you just don't observe them because you don't participate. I would of course be happy if you did participate in the team, which is why I insisted you join IRC previously. Unfortunately this doesn't work, you don't reliably reply if people talk to you on IRC or mail, so I concluded (without offense intended!) you don't have the time and we need to figure out a way to get things done. I didn't ENJOY writing this thread either. It's just that the poll didn't seem to work. Sure, I could've put out the results; but then still someone needs to call the shot on how to interpret them - why would you suddenly have time for that then? But anyway, what you said seems like you'd be OK with me doing the decision about the result publication of the poll without asking you further questions. So if you're good with that, I'll just wait for a week for people to reply to this thread, and if they want the results, I'll put them out. OK? Greetings
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
