Re: [GNU/consensus] A GNU Consensus for the GNU Year!

[hellekin (GNU Consensus)]

On 12/31/2012 04:54 PM, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> Dear Hellekin,
> 
> While, as I'm sure you know, I'm happy about this initiative in general
> and like to see it succeed, I'm not quite happy with some details in the
> manifesto.
>
*** Hi Christian! Nice to have you around. I want to make you happy :)

> In particular, you write:
> 
>>>>
> Anonymity
>
> Thus, I'd urge you to change the section
> title to something more like "Right to Pseudonymity".
>
*** You make an excellent point. Richard, do you have any objection to
that renaming, as you wrote this section?

> 
> My second nitpick is that it remains unclear to me how _exactly_ you
> expect people (or projects) to contribute in the GNU consensus-context.
>
*** I have some ideas, such as providing a test suite that is more
modular than the original SWAT tests, as we've been discussing with
Melvin earlier. You can find a log of a conversation we had recently on
IRC at the LibrePlanet wiki[1].

In general, I want to engage in a conversation with the stakeholders, so
that we can reach a consensus--hence the name of the project, on what
has to be done in order to facilitate interoperability. I want to avoid
being too directive, and give a chance to everyone to voice their
opinions, concerns, and practical needs.

As we go, we'll refine the means and define more practical objectives,
but for now, I'd like to hear from every party involved.

I wrote a couple of articles two years ago, describing a generic user's
perspective[2], and a another describing a coder's perspective[3]. I
will send them both to the list for review and discussion.

In any case, I see the GNU/consensus project as a catalyst, and not an
authority. If it becomes an authority, it will be through consensus
within the community, not through imposing our views--we're looking for
consensus, not coercion.

> 
> Finally, a little note: there is in GNUnet an API which is called the
> "consensus" API (for set reconciliation).  That API --- while possibly a
> useful building block for social network applications --- should not be
> confused with the "GNU Consensus" protocol.  I wonder if we need to
> rename it to avoid a possible confusion...
>
*** We do not *own* the name "consensus", and I don't think we're going
to produce a "GNU/consensus API", so I think it's safe to keep it that
way. If we were to produce an API, we would choose another name for it,
because yours exists already, and that would be confusing to use the
same name. ;o)

==
hk

[1]
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/User_talk:Hellekin/A_Coder_Perspective_Of_GNU_Social
[2]
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Hellekin/A_User_Perspective_Of_GNU_Social
[3]
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Hellekin/A_Coder_Perspective_Of_GNU_Social

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature