On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: > Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious! I go to sleep for a few hours, and the > discussion descends into total confusion because a number of participants, > including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce > from perfect-privacy.com. He did *not* propose, for example, any equivalent > to #include statements. He did *not* propose, for example, any method of > allowing a node to specify other members of a Family.
Your interpretation of what Bruce said makes sense. But it is not how I parsed, "BelongToFamily xyz" in his message. I read it the same way it seems that Roger did, as giving a list: node x, node y, and node z. And then we're off and running. I think what Bruce/you suggest is better than what I proposed to avoid the problems Roger and Andrew noted. As I said before, it's not how MyFamily now works. And I believe Andrew/Roger/me/others were addressing trying to use the existing functionality in a different way, which was another disconnect. Anyway, this is certainly an idea worth considering. Now, should you ever say you are in multiple families at once? And should there be a lattice structure for families, hmmm? ;>) Thanks for clearing things up, Paul *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to [email protected] with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
