[GNU/consensus] This Is (NOT) The War Room

[hellekin]

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room! What is
going on here? I demand an explanation." -- President Muffley, in Dr.
Strangelove

Interestingly, the conversation we're having on the GNU consensus and
the SocialSwarm mailing lists illustrate a critical point of our
struggle for privacy on the Internet: that the technology is secondary
to politics.

When politics does the right thing, then technology can apply; when
politics goes wrong, whatever the technology, politics will try and
mussel it.

The workshop at 30C3 is--in my remote understanding--mostly about
raising a common technical front for most-private-possible
implementations, to short-circuit politics gone wrong. There is an
emergency on that front, as politics is way off the mark regarding how
user's privacy is constantly violated in electronic communications.
So we need not only to re-establish political control, but also
provide technically sound counterparts to the will-to-watch-and-listen
that all the politicians without exception have been showing.

I wish there was a bit more discernment in the reactions of all
parties involved regarding the objectives of our efforts. This lack
of dialogue is counter-productive and no, I'm not interested in whose
fault is it. We're not kids. Just pull yourselves together and stop
whining. What is it you want to achieve?

==
hk

[Michael Rogers]

Hellekin, thanks for that much needed intervention. I agree that "What
is it you want to achieve?" is the question we should ask ourselves. I
think we'll discover a surprising amount of agreement in our answers.

Answering for myself, I want to support freedom of expression, freedom
of association, and the right to a private life. I don't think current
communication systems support those things well enough, so I want to
build communication systems that support them better. I hope we're all
more or less in agreement there.

Where I think we differ is on the question of means. Some of us have
been disagreeing on that question, more or less vocally, since we
first met, and I don't expect we'll ever reach consensus.

THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FINE.

We don't have to agree about means. We don't have to find one
approach, or one project, that we can all get behind and push. We can
and should look at the problem from many angles, try many approaches
in parallel, fork and merge, imitate and appropriate, reuse pieces we
found on the scrapheap. THAT'S HOW SHIT GETS BUILT. Not by bickering
about what "we" should be doing, but by each of us doing something.

Which means it's time for me to shut up and write some code.

Cheers,
Michael

Post by hellekin
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room! What is
going on here? I demand an explanation." -- President Muffley, in
Dr. Strangelove
Interestingly, the conversation we're having on the GNU consensus
and the SocialSwarm mailing lists illustrate a critical point of
our struggle for privacy on the Internet: that the technology is
secondary to politics.
When politics does the right thing, then technology can apply;
when politics goes wrong, whatever the technology, politics will
try and mussel it.
The workshop at 30C3 is--in my remote understanding--mostly about
raising a common technical front for most-private-possible
implementations, to short-circuit politics gone wrong. There is
an emergency on that front, as politics is way off the mark
regarding how user's privacy is constantly violated in electronic
communications. So we need not only to re-establish political
control, but also provide technically sound counterparts to the
will-to-watch-and-listen that all the politicians without exception
have been showing.
I wish there was a bit more discernment in the reactions of all
parties involved regarding the objectives of our efforts. This
lack of dialogue is counter-productive and no, I'm not interested
in whose fault is it. We're not kids. Just pull yourselves
together and stop whining. What is it you want to achieve?
== hk

[Nick Jennings]

I second that motion!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hellekin, thanks for that much needed intervention. I agree that "What
is it you want to achieve?" is the question we should ask ourselves. I
think we'll discover a surprising amount of agreement in our answers.
Answering for myself, I want to support freedom of expression, freedom
of association, and the right to a private life. I don't think current
communication systems support those things well enough, so I want to
build communication systems that support them better. I hope we're all
more or less in agreement there.
Where I think we differ is on the question of means. Some of us have
been disagreeing on that question, more or less vocally, since we
first met, and I don't expect we'll ever reach consensus.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FINE.
We don't have to agree about means. We don't have to find one
approach, or one project, that we can all get behind and push. We can
and should look at the problem from many angles, try many approaches
in parallel, fork and merge, imitate and appropriate, reuse pieces we
found on the scrapheap. THAT'S HOW SHIT GETS BUILT. Not by bickering
about what "we" should be doing, but by each of us doing something.
Which means it's time for me to shut up and write some code.
Cheers,
Michael

Post by hellekin
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room! What is
going on here? I demand an explanation." -- President Muffley, in
Dr. Strangelove
Interestingly, the conversation we're having on the GNU consensus
and the SocialSwarm mailing lists illustrate a critical point of
our struggle for privacy on the Internet: that the technology is
secondary to politics.
When politics does the right thing, then technology can apply;
when politics goes wrong, whatever the technology, politics will
try and mussel it.
The workshop at 30C3 is--in my remote understanding--mostly about
raising a common technical front for most-private-possible
implementations, to short-circuit politics gone wrong. There is
an emergency on that front, as politics is way off the mark
regarding how user's privacy is constantly violated in electronic
communications. So we need not only to re-establish political
control, but also provide technically sound counterparts to the
will-to-watch-and-listen that all the politicians without exception
have been showing.
I wish there was a bit more discernment in the reactions of all
parties involved regarding the objectives of our efforts. This
lack of dialogue is counter-productive and no, I'm not interested
in whose fault is it. We're not kids. Just pull yourselves
together and stop whining. What is it you want to achieve?
== hk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSjQceAAoJEBEET9GfxSfMItcIAIy98uRGCs5xSFUUAy0VXCkZ
FgbbjF3kCu2XMrrg0/EqtG+ldc2eNuoKrU9SbOtB5d/IjWEqSrOtoQXYKbSQUMRs
6LW6aWkElVX3O9K8J4T94EvTgH3HDg6Za+nM2n3DZgqov9NYrRbsOhJn7A/W85yb
KWH9mgLqBhcJePrubh7A1OUiucs9izPCaKDaBPQEdaZP1ARvXBOCwQRJKRKyw0Pq
bvSgfupj5LZ1HwZ1VYPLe0mFOFF9ZdJXcfva3f7o4NISly0jVEZiP6XUe0GAIz5+
lSbQ1IqsObOkyQg9UUyKW7+PvJzZwo/YijxOW9Kfs2TGA2ApIvq6x/nDCLhsqUw=
=bRa+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
SocialSwarm mailing lists: https://socialswarm.net/en/participate/
Websites: https://socialswarm.net/ https://wiki.socialswarm.net/
Liquid Feedback: https://socialswarm.tracciabi.li/