[Freedombox-discuss] Anonymous Proposals

Tue Feb 22 20:46:17 UTC 2011

Jonas,

  Pushed to Wiki.  I would suggest however that Sphinx is a far superior
documentation platform.

http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/Proposals/AnonProposal

I will deploy future components of the design proposal there as well.

Regards,
  Matt

Phil,

  Thanks for the response.  Sorry if I come off as stand offish or a jerk.
I've
noticed since I made the jump from east coast Brooklyn to the west coast
that
people don't always have the same approach to conversation.  That's a
failing of
mine I am working on.  Feel free to call me out on it.  It helps.

  Getting down to brass tacks, I didn't wish to imply that I want to limit
or prevent
anyone from contributing in any way.  The great thing about open source, is
that
people can contribute as they see fit.  That's a strength we should be truly

appreciative of.  What the thrust of my effort is right now is to focus
efforts on the
basic components of this project.  I am concerned that people are not
putting a lot
of thought into what they are doing.  Some of the recommendations I have
read
on this list seem to suffer from tunnel vision.

  For example, embedded device development for cheap systems is wholly
different
from the development that many of those willing to help are familiar with.
When
good folks suggest deploying python, perl, and php onto an embedded device,
or
supporting full debian compatibility, I wince.  Most embedded units that are
under
the 100 dollar barrier cannot currently support this.  We would also
sacrifice a great
deal of capability on those units that may be capable of supporting these
resource
intensive requirements.

  The reason Moglen wanted to target cheap units like the sheeva, or wrt
systems,
is that they are widely available, and an integral part of global society at
this point.
Most countries can't stop someone from buying a wireless router.  If we can
give
them  software for that router that will provide them the opportunity to
duck out of
the way of an oppressive regime we have done a good thing.  If we can deploy
a
protocol compatible software image to a cellular phone platform again we
win.  The
goal is to ensure we have a basic framework that can be pushed into any
networked
device and activate it as a means of communication.

  So I am attempting to distil the essential components of this effort.
What are our
goals here?  What is the minimum set of functionality we can deploy that
will
achieve our goals?  Then, how do we approach that?  What target platforms
will this
support?  At that point we can get back to the actual meat and potatoes of
this
development effort.

  I don't see this as being a "new project".  More like the actual skeleton
upon which
we can build the many various ideas I've seen voiced on this list and in
Eben Moglen's
talk at FOSDEM.  And I think that may be where you and I are not connecting
in terms
of what I am trying to communicate.  Once an API exists that we all agree on
we can
allow many different people to focus on the specific areas of the project
that appeal to
them.  Including integrating the communication back channel and storage with
things
such as facebook, VPS hosting, and whatever crazy thing you want.  You can
worry
about UI and interface.  While another person can focus on plugging into
software
defined radio and setting up packet radio links.  Maybe someone will focus
on providing
a wide arrange of authentication modules.

  The goal is to just ensure that the many development efforts that will
exist in this
space can coexist peacefully and work towards a common goal.

  Looking for feedback like this.  So thanks!

  Regards,
     Matt

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Philip Hands <phil at hands.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:51:13 -0800, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com>
> wrote:
> > Here's the first of many anonymous proposals.  I am working on trying to
> > break down the freedom box project into sections we can chew on.  Too
> many
> > people seem to be leading charges in random directions for lots of
> different
> > reasons.  I think like many of us that we need to clearly define what we
> are
> > doing before we go about defining how we intend to do it.
>
> Firstly, your comment about random directions seems to imply that you'd
> like to prevent some people from doing what they feel is most likely to
> produce their vision of what the Freedombox should be, because it
> doesn't fit in with your (or some future consensus) vision of what the
> Freedombox should be -- that's not really how things work around here.
>
> We're not exactly overwhelmed by people doing stuff, so I'd say anyone
> that actually feels like doing something should be applauded rather than
> discouraged -- who are we (the talkers) to decide what's useful for the
> doers to be working on?
>
> Secondly, you appear to be proposing a new project to provide one of the
> bits of the jigsaw for the Freedombox you envisage.  That's great, and I
> wish you luck with the construction, but I tend to agree with Jonas that
> we should be sticking at what we're good at here, and just doing the
> integration of the pieces that already exist into a coherent whole.
>
> Feel free to recruit people to the cause of building your new anonymous
> whatnot from here or elsewhere, but please don't try to stop people
> working on whatever they think is the important bit -- Debian has always
> run in many directions at once -- that's how we get to try out most of
> the plausible solutions to a problem, and pick one or two of the better
> ones.
>
> If we end up with two or three distinct incarnations of the Freedombox,
> well it may be a bit of a branding disaster, but it'll provide solutions
> for more people in the long run, and anyway, one of them will probably
> emerge as the definitive Freedombox, and will probably have features and
> capabilities that none of us are currently imagining -- better that than
> killing people's enthusiasm by telling them where in the problem space
> they must work, and so getting nothing.
>
> Cheers, Phil.
> --
> |)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
> |-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
> |(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110222/c790edd2/attachment.htm>