Roger Dingledine: > Hi folks, > > In addition to the "get many fast exit relays" plan, that same funder > (Voice of America) wants us to run a pile of fast stable unpublished > bridges. We'll give the bridge addresses out manually to their target > users over the coming months. > (...)
> We do have some funding for this, but I'm hoping that we can get enough > volunteers so we can put the money toward more fast exits and better QA > and build automation for the Tor bundles. So if you have good connectivity > but can't run an exit, this is a great way to contribute. > (...) I might be overreacting (especially since nobody else replies), but doesn't that split up Tor users in (two) groups? Instead of having a larger pool (of bridges) for anyone you ask for unpublished bridges which will be handed to "privileged" people. Volunteers running unpublished bridges and giving them to friends in $restrictive_country is one thing and their private choice. The same is valid for a funder that pays for unpublished bridges. It appears fine to me that a funder can make such choices. You ask volunteers to achieve a funders goal. Those might run a bridge already, but "un-publish" it. Less bridges for the rest. They could run relays and turn them into unpublished bridges. Less relays for anyone. Running a relay or bridge (published) would be a better contribution IMO. Some were "upset" about funding for exits, because the Tor Project could become dependent to the funding. 125+ exits is a huge number, but I didn't "distrust" your judgment. However now I'm upset that the unpublished bridges hurt the network. It's hurting the network to achieve a funders goal. To me that's the wrong way. Please read "you" as "the Tor Project" and "your" as "the Tor Projects'", because I did not intend to address this to you, as Roger. Regards, Sebastian _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
