[Freedombox-discuss] Introducing the Technical Advisory Committee
----- Forwarded message from James Vasile <james@hackervisions.org> -----
Hopefully now the people on the mailing list who stupidly propose and stupidly shoot down PET-related freedombox things will shut up, since it's clear they have no actual say. That's probably just as impossible a dream as the FreedomBox itself, though (as specified by the FBF right now). On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 15:58 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
----- Forwarded message from James Vasile <james@hackervisions.org> -----
From: James Vasile <james@hackervisions.org> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 17:52:14 -0400 To: freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org Subject: [Freedombox-discuss] Introducing the Technical Advisory Committee User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5-216-g76ea9ab (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
# Introducing the Technical Advisory Committee
As the community continues to push the FreedomBox from idea towards reality, it is time to expand our technical leadership team. We are happy to announce the formation of a technical advisory committee to help coordinate and guide the development efforts of this project. This advisory committee is already underway, with an initial membership of industry leaders including:
* Bdale Garbee, Open Source & Linux Chief Technologist at Hewlett-Packard,
* Jacob Appelbaum from the Tor project,
* Sam Hartman, former Chief Technologist at the MIT Kerberos Consortium and IETF Security Area Director,
* Sascha Meinrath, Director of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative,
* Rob Savoye, long-time GNU hacker, Gnash lead developer, and winner of the 2010 award for the Advancement of Free Software
* Matt Zimmerman, former Canonical CTO
We'll be hearing more from the TAC over the coming weeks and months. Anyone interested in following the activity of the advisory committee as it happens is welcome to check out the public archives of their email list at http://lists.freedomboxfoundation.org/s/arc/tac. If you want to talk to the TAC in real time, they can be found in #freedombox-tac on irc.oftc.net.
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
----- End forwarded message -----
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
On Fri, 27 May 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
Hopefully now the people on the mailing list who stupidly propose and stupidly shoot down PET-related freedombox things will shut up, since it's clear they have no actual say.
"Stupidly"? Is it "stupid" because it's a view you disagree with, or is it stupid for some other STUPID, ad-hominem reason? //Alif -- I hate Missouri. Land of the free, home of the perjuriously deranged.
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 22:50 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
Hopefully now the people on the mailing list who stupidly propose and stupidly shoot down PET-related freedombox things will shut up, since it's clear they have no actual say.
"Stupidly"? Is it "stupid" because it's a view you disagree with, or is it stupid for some other STUPID, ad-hominem reason?
//Alif
A lot of (sure, not all, but most) the PET-related ideas are stupid, and shooting down ideas because they aren't in keeping with the "vision of the FreedomBox" is stupid unless you work for the FBF and actually can state with authority what is and isn't the freedombox. The mailing list has turned into a platform for: * people with little to no PET experience to propose crazy ideas (like "the freedombox should square zooko's triangle out of the box" or "we should figure out how to use X.509 for a peer-to-peer horizontalist solution to whatever problem faces us") * people to shout down the above people with non-existent authority. For a project that got a pretty good amount of money on kickstarter, that's just stupid. [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
On Sat, 28 May 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 22:50 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
Hopefully now the people on the mailing list who stupidly propose and stupidly shoot down PET-related freedombox things will shut up, since it's clear they have no actual say.
"Stupidly"? Is it "stupid" because it's a view you disagree with, or is it stupid for some other STUPID, ad-hominem reason?
//Alif
A lot of (sure, not all, but most) the PET-related ideas are stupid,
*I* think most, if not all of the current ideas for the FB are *technologically unworkable* (at this time anyway), but thats a *long* way from "stupid". Sorry Ted, but by declaring everything as "stupid", it is *you* who are arguing from false authority (and with straw arguments no less). Do you even listen to yourself?
and shooting down ideas because they aren't in keeping with the "vision of the FreedomBox" is stupid unless you work for the FBF and actually can state with authority what is and isn't the freedombox.
As an "open" project, *everyone* is both encouraged and entitled to put forward their own visions of the FB - that said, the box *is* the dominion of the FBF, and their word *is* the last one. The ideas put forward from "outside" the FBF are *not* "stupid" just because you don't believe they are (a) viable; (b) correct for the FBF's "vision"; (c) any other reason you can state. "Stupid" is an attack term and nothing more. It doesn't add to the discourse, in fact, it just makes *you* look "stupid" for arguing from behind that curtain.
The mailing list has turned into a platform for:
* people with little to no PET experience to propose crazy ideas
The list is specifically *designed* to solicit such input Ted. Even uninformed or, to use your next ad hominem, "crazy" inputs: specifically because they *may* lead the FBF into new directions. <SNIP>
* people to shout down the above people with non-existent authority.
Um, PKB: see above.
For a project that got a pretty good amount of money on kickstarter, that's just stupid.
And there's the trifecta. :-( //Alif -- I hate Missouri. Land of the free, home of the perjuriously deranged.
On Sat, 2011-05-28 at 09:38 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 22:50 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
Hopefully now the people on the mailing list who stupidly propose and stupidly shoot down PET-related freedombox things will shut up, since it's clear they have no actual say.
"Stupidly"? Is it "stupid" because it's a view you disagree with, or is it stupid for some other STUPID, ad-hominem reason?
//Alif
A lot of (sure, not all, but most) the PET-related ideas are stupid,
*I* think most, if not all of the current ideas for the FB are *technologically unworkable* (at this time anyway), but thats a *long* way from "stupid". Sorry Ted, but by declaring everything as "stupid", it is *you* who are arguing from false authority (and with straw arguments no less). Do you even listen to yourself?
and shooting down ideas because they aren't in keeping with the "vision of the FreedomBox" is stupid unless you work for the FBF and actually can state with authority what is and isn't the freedombox.
As an "open" project, *everyone* is both encouraged and entitled to put forward their own visions of the FB - that said, the box *is* the dominion of the FBF, and their word *is* the last one. The ideas put forward from "outside" the FBF are *not* "stupid" just because you don't believe they are (a) viable; (b) correct for the FBF's "vision"; (c) any other reason you can state.
"Stupid" is an attack term and nothing more. It doesn't add to the discourse, in fact, it just makes *you* look "stupid" for arguing from behind that curtain.
I guess my idea of a productive mailing list excludes posts about technologically unworkable ideas from people who will never be able to implement them that will never be adopted under the FB aegis. I think that that's stupid, and I'm not afraid to say so. It seems that you're okay with that, and that's okay -- it just means you have more free time to read and ponder mailing list messages than I do, or have a much lower possibility barrier when faced with possible time investments. But considering how vemently you attacked me for making a flip comment about how I hoped unproductive/stupid mailing list traffic would decrease on the freedombox list in the presence of an organized group advancing the FBF agenda, I think at this point it's more probable that you're just pissed off that I called you out for putting too much faith in electoral democracy than that you have a strong inclination to defend unproductive mailing list postings. [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
I like the concept of a "possibility barrier". I'd like to discuss forumalting it in an exact manner, like the sound or light barrier. Later it might be used to postulate the probability of success of any project and when the accuracy is high enough we can build a heuristic process to eliminate any email's inpossible idea's. Until then I suggest silent awkward looks across the room. (helping people understand why what they're trying to do is impossible is a good idea too.) 2011/5/28 Ted Smith <teddks@gmail.com>
On Sat, 2011-05-28 at 09:38 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 22:50 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
Hopefully now the people on the mailing list who stupidly propose and stupidly shoot down PET-related freedombox things will shut up, since it's clear they have no actual say.
"Stupidly"? Is it "stupid" because it's a view you disagree with, or is it stupid for some other STUPID, ad-hominem reason?
//Alif
A lot of (sure, not all, but most) the PET-related ideas are stupid,
*I* think most, if not all of the current ideas for the FB are *technologically unworkable* (at this time anyway), but thats a *long* way from "stupid". Sorry Ted, but by declaring everything as "stupid", it is *you* who are arguing from false authority (and with straw arguments no less). Do you even listen to yourself?
and shooting down ideas because they aren't in keeping with the "vision of the FreedomBox" is stupid unless you work for the FBF and actually can state with authority what is and isn't the freedombox.
As an "open" project, *everyone* is both encouraged and entitled to put forward their own visions of the FB - that said, the box *is* the dominion of the FBF, and their word *is* the last one. The ideas put forward from "outside" the FBF are *not* "stupid" just because you don't believe they are (a) viable; (b) correct for the FBF's "vision"; (c) any other reason you can state.
"Stupid" is an attack term and nothing more. It doesn't add to the discourse, in fact, it just makes *you* look "stupid" for arguing from behind that curtain.
I guess my idea of a productive mailing list excludes posts about technologically unworkable ideas from people who will never be able to implement them that will never be adopted under the FB aegis. I think that that's stupid, and I'm not afraid to say so.
It seems that you're okay with that, and that's okay -- it just means you have more free time to read and ponder mailing list messages than I do, or have a much lower possibility barrier when faced with possible time investments.
But considering how vemently you attacked me for making a flip comment about how I hoped unproductive/stupid mailing list traffic would decrease on the freedombox list in the presence of an organized group advancing the FBF agenda, I think at this point it's more probable that you're just pissed off that I called you out for putting too much faith in electoral democracy than that you have a strong inclination to defend unproductive mailing list postings.
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
participants (4)
-
Eugen Leitl -
J.A. Terranson -
lodewijk andré de la porte -
Ted Smith