Christian Grothoff <groth...@gnunet.org> writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > On 10/11/2016 12:14 PM, ng0 wrote: >> So technically I do not >> speak on behalf of the GNUnet Project (I think you mean someone employed >> by iniria with this or the current project maintainer). > > > I just have to briefly chime in on this. > > As the GNU maintainer, I am ultimately responsible (to GNU) for > technical decisions (and licensing-compliance issues). While my voice > may therefore carry some additional weight, I really don't see the > project as having a hierarchy (and as such there is no "speaker"). Most > importantly, if you disagree with my technical choices too strongly, you > can always fork! And if it is about an actual disagreement (and not a > stupid misunderstanding), I would even say you should! > > Furthermore, Inria/TUM employees should not be seen as being more > "representative" of the project than (other) volunteers. If there are > any representatives, it's the elected GNUnet e.V. board (which can > obviously speak for the GNUnet e.V., https://gnunet.org/ev).
Thanks for clearing that up. Just to make my choice of words clear: In the past I've encountered various interpretations of words like maintainer, contributor, and related ones and had discussions about it. The irritation which occured because of these words was why I chose to specify it like this. Off-list(s) I've also been asked more than once if I am employed by Inria/TUM because of work I do, so it can sometimes be confusing to people who do not have the whole picture. They seem to make a distinction between people who work for money for GNUnet and those who have to get their income from elsewhere and still contribute to GNUnet. I don't see the difference, a team is a team, but it's a question I get surprisingly often. Maybe it's also due to my position which makes it weird to understand for people as I am between all GNUnet related projects - a less confusing simplification would be to just say 'I work for GNUnet' and be done with the confusion. > Regardless of who can speak for the project, speech is also still cheap. > In the end, what matters for GNUnet is code! Code "speaks" louder (and > more clearly) than any philosophical discussion can: Once it is > implemented, it becomes irrevocably part of our reality, if we like it > or not. And then there is no point in arguing about what should be or > could be, because something is. > > > So to those interested in doing something about abuse, > https://gnunet.org/p4t is one (so far unimplemented) proposal, and > Taler-style payments (https://taler.net/) is another one many of us are > already working on. > > > However, only such *concrete* proposals for specific issues are useful, > and specifically "abuse" is a term that is way too general (as anyone > can interpret it in any way they see fit) to be addressed in a > meaningful way. (Especially since there usually are two sides to many > related issues: free speech vs. slander, censorship vs. misinformation, > network neutrality vs. traffic optimization, Sybil attacks vs. > unlinkable identities/pseudonyms, Spam vs. campaigning, etc.. But once > we put these issues into specific technical designs, the discussions > usually sharpen to actionable choices with clear consequences.) > _______________________________________________ > Help-gnunet mailing list > Help-gnunet@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet -- _______________________________________________ Help-gnunet mailing list Help-gnunet@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet
