[GNU/consensus] [SocialSwarm-D] Swarm and Consensus

[Klaus Schleisiek]

I like the idea to join forces. This was the whole purpose of social swarm in the beginning. I don't think it's necessary to dissolve completely into another project though.
Hence I prefer the idea of keeping Social Swarm as the political/activist wing, whereas the technicians join GNU for example.

I strongly suggest that we leave everything as it was before. People developed
their personal communication habits, either joining consesus or swarm or both
(as I did). Proposing any "change" will only disrupt the ongoing communication
and create confusion.

Honestly, I do not see that certain people concentrate on the political, others
on the technical aspects. Here is a group of technically oriented people with a
strong perception of the political aspects.

And besides - since I subscribed to both lists - this does not lead to any kind
of information overflow.

Therefore, I would appreciate if we could terminate this discussion and get back
to the issues. I am very glad that the network of people that subscribed to
socialswarm or consensus was able to hold a meeting on 24/25.8. in Berlin to
prepare the cluster of events at 30C3 to promote socialnet_3.0.

Please stay tuned, a description of what we would like to do at 30C3 will follow
shortly.

[hellekin]

Post by Klaus Schleisiek
Please stay tuned, a description of what we would like to do at
30C3 will follow shortly.

*** All right, I'm a bit in a hurry because of the heavy 3rd week of
September that starts on the 21 with Free Software Day, and ends with
the 30th birthday of the GNU project.

Does it make sense then, to list GNU/consensus as supporter of
SocialSwarm, and vice versa?

==
hk

[Melvin Carvalho]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Post by Klaus Schleisiek
Please stay tuned, a description of what we would like to do at
30C3 will follow shortly.

*** All right, I'm a bit in a hurry because of the heavy 3rd week of
September that starts on the 21 with Free Software Day, and ends with
the 30th birthday of the GNU project.
Does it make sense then, to list GNU/consensus as supporter of
SocialSwarm, and vice versa?

I see socialswarm as aiming to make an awesome secure skype replacement, as
a combination of retroshare, gnunet, secureshare. This is quite a
challenge, but if combining forces there may be a chance to gain traction,
we'll know soon enough.

I see GNU consensus as more inclusive of technologies such as lorea, elgg,
gnu social (previously status.net), linked data as well as integration with
social swarm. Sort of a challenge to facebook, g+ etc. so a wider scope.

So +1 I think the two efforts are different things.

==
hk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/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=Mi1F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
_______________________________________________
SocialSwarm-DISCUSSION mailing list
https://mail.foebud.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/socialswarm-discussion
Website : http://socialswarm.net/
Wiki : https://wiki.socialswarm.net
Liquid Feedback: https://socialswarm.tracciabi.li
SocialSwarm-ANNOUNCE (Announcements only; no discussion)
SocialSwarm-DISCUSSION (discussion list)
SocialSwarm-TECH (discussion list for technik and coders)
https://mail.foebud.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/socialswarm-announce
https://mail.foebud.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/socialswarm-tech
https://mail.foebud.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/socialswarm-discussion
FoeBuD e.V. | Marktstrasse 18 | 33602 Bielefeld | Germany |

[carlo von lynX]

Post by Melvin Carvalho
I see socialswarm as aiming to make an awesome secure skype replacement, as
a combination of retroshare, gnunet, secureshare. This is quite a
challenge, but if combining forces there may be a chance to gain traction,
we'll know soon enough.
I see GNU consensus as more inclusive of technologies such as lorea, elgg,
gnu social (previously status.net), linked data as well as integration with
social swarm. Sort of a challenge to facebook, g+ etc. so a wider scope.

Projects that do not solve the scalability issue will not be able to
implement something apparently simple such as a distributed Twitter.
I mean, yes, they can do it, but when people find out about it and start
using it, it will just crumble apart like Wheetabix. No million user
subscription channels? No Facebook replacement!

As I just posted in "Why the new pubsub & multicast API for GNUnet could
spell revolution" I do not see any of the projects you mentioned taking
on that challenge, so none of them are anywhere close to challenging
the likes of Faceboogle.

Post by Melvin Carvalho
So +1 I think the two efforts are different things.

No, what I think is that at least one functional distribution platform
must be developed. Then everyone can recycle her code to operate on
top of it, as if it were the new openssl or the new pubsubhubbub -
but I don't see how the community can achieve such a huge challenge
twice, especially since many of its promoters still aren't even
perceiving the challenge - understanding why Faceboogle keeps on
winning again and again. Because cloud architectures scale, and at the
same time they are the evil we intend to avoid. There is no such thing
as a safe and globally scalable and trustworthy people's cloud. Or if
there is, it is probably going to be called GNUnet.

See the perspective?

That's why the result from this workshop is basically the same as the
one from the year before: We cannot afford to have parallel developments
going on - we need to work on a common architecture vertically - that is
everyone in charge of his protocol layer.

For example I could envision...

- Briar working on meshnet transports and multiline messaging UIs
- ProjectDanube focusing on an amazing social web interface
- Lorea and Riseup packing tools and making them activist-friendly
- GNU status.net social providing a website generator for life stream channels
- Unhosted developing distributed Javascript apps on top of secushare
- Tox and Mumble teaming up to make obfuscated VoIP conferencing function
- Friendica on an alternative web interface and Faceboogle gateways
- Tor and I2P feeding their long experience into the GNUnet beast
- Melvin & Henry figuring out how linked data can be useful in this architecture
(probably in the upper payload layers that we are currently so far from having)

Right now it's like all of us are trying to invent SSL, but everyone
differently, and everyone isn't achieving sufficiently good results
to change the world. RetroShare maybe. The way forum posts and chat
lobbies propagate along the network isn't totally different from
multicast - it's just a lot more random.

So back to the vocabulary.

[Klaus Wuestefeld]

- socialnet3 the name of a cluster at the congress and i
totally prefer the name 'Sovereign Computing' although it
doesn't hint at the social application dimension at all

With Facebook, Google+ and Twitter we have "Social".

The "Sovereign" bit is what's missing.

Klaus