On 14 July 2011 18:13, James Vasile <[email protected]> wrote: > The idea of working groups has been proposed a few times by a few > different people. From my point of view, this seems like a good idea. > It's time. > > There are two questions here. First, what working groups should we > form. Second, how shall those groups operate? I think if we answer the > first, each group can answer the second on its own. I'm happy to > arrange hosted infrastructure to the extent debian.org or github don't > suit. >
There should definitely be a separate WG for user interface discussions, which so far now, has not received much attention on the list. Also, until there is a clear roadmap of the stages in which the FreedomBox is going to come, it is difficult to specify the range of the working groups. For example, in the very early phases of this list, the consensus seemed to be just have a computing space which is cheap, very easy to maintain, under my own control and can do basic stuff (email hosting/cache, calendar, content aggregation, status.net, fileserver) as well as functioning as a router if need be. Now, the idea of FBox has evolved into something which has mesh networking (even not requiring DNS), has anonymisation as well as serving as a separate 'Internet'. While there is no doubt that these ideas are interesting and useful, there should be a progression of stages through which the FBox will pass through to reach this goal -- and not try to do everything at once. This has to be clarified. From the discussions on this ML, to me it seems like at least a network protocols and privacy/identity distribution WG should be created. Once it has been agreed what will be there in the _first_ release of FBox, setting up WGs will become easier. -- Abhishek _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
