earlier I advocated a press release mechanism, and this is getting flamed to smithereens by the more libertarian/cryptoanarchists elements of the group, as I predicted (but geez, accusing me of *deliberately* trying to start a flamewar here really hurts my feelings! if I were really that mischievous, the meager return would be quite an insult to my expertise.. <g>). however this is entirely a matter of phasing of the question. I am *not* advocating that someone be elected the spokesman, that everyone agrees on what he says, that we all agree it is our "official representation" etc. and I thought I made this clear. (oops, I used that "we" word again, my humble apologies. just pretend that I'm talking to my tentacles if you object.) I do believe these are valuable attributes of groups and can help knit cohesion and help determine meaningful agenda (people here sometimes complain about the lack of focus or of conquest, and do you need any clue as to *why* there is a lack of this?) but I will not promote it where it is not relevant (or at leas, not welcomed). what I had in mind was a more FAQ-like cypherpunks document, with a list of who considers themself a cypherpunks contributer, or just someone who is willing to be a listed expert on a topic for media inquiries. all the time, someone just sits down and writes a FAQ for a newsgroup, yet there was no "official" appointment. if a FAQ is continually updated, it becomes very much like a press release. a question on the list might be, "what exactly did the cypherpunks discover about netscape? what is the seriousness of this flaw?" etc. in this way the questions become virtually identical to what the media would inquire. and in a sense every newsgroup's FAQ is almost like a "press release" for everyone in the newsgroup. but this also shows why a FAQ is almost invariably *extremely* time consuming and a herculean task to compile/update involving huge numbers of man-hours the refined, final product does not convey. I am advocating that individuals here come up with a FAQ. there are excellent web sites, but not a simple FAQ of this group. I also encourage competing FAQs at first. this happens all the time in newsgroups, and they eventually merge or cover different topics. the FAQ topic has been discussed here often, and everyone agrees it is a pretty good idea, and someone should "just do it" if they want to. I guess what I'm pointing out (beyond the usual noise on the subject) is that if anyone wants to have cypherpunk press releases, that energy is better channelled into a FAQ. it is a definite vacuum that would beneficially be filled, IMHO. (the TCM cyphernomicon, while admirable, is not really a FAQ imho..) I am *not* advocating that (or rather, I say that we *should not*) vote on a FAQ writer, decide what is the *official* FAQ for the group if there are competing ones, bar or *discourage* some people from creating a FAQ, etc. what I want to point out is that the FAQ is a model by which a very anarchic group of people can come to a definite document by which they communicate their "findings" and their concerns, and everything else that occupies their brains daily. this happens through the FAQ writer as a conduit. in a sense, the FAQ writer is the unappointed "spokesman" for the group. he wins approval through the gradual process of people using the document and not through any other means. another alternative that actually seems to be enjoying some success is for individual cypherpunks to issue press releases pertaining to their own specialty. i.e., "so-and-so at company X announced that they would be doing so-and-so in conjunction with the cypherpunks". again, how can anyone object to this if there really is no such thing as a "cypherpunk group"? their press release certainly can't be in conflict with something that doesn't exist. the sword cuts both ways, although the rabid elements on this list would rather not admit it: if no one is a cypherpunk, if there is no "official" goal or leader, if the term is not owned by anyone, then anyone can define "cypherpunk" to be anything they want, and do anything they like under that title. as soon as you say, "well, they're not a cypherpunk if so-and-so", well, your pretty much violating your own premise: that there is no such thing as a "cypherpunks group" or "official agenda". it seems to me that the opposition to group organizing etc. in this group is related to something else: the idea that the most valuable conquests come from individual tinkerers who are not part of any "group", who pursue their own ideas at the ignorance or hostility of the rest of "society" (another cypherpunk 4-letter word, of course). this is related to the idea of doing things in secret, too. "the most valuable projects are those that are kept secret, pursued by only one or a few, and then unleashed on the world all at once." these are interesting and enticing ideas, and I don't deny them to some degree (there are many famous historical examples, such as arguably Tesla, Ramanujan, Fermat, Archimedes, etc.), but it is also true, IMHO, that there are certain things that cannot be accomplished without a certain degree of organization and cooperation among many elements.. (well, again a cryptoanarchist heresy, but hell, I'm pretty good at those). but fortunately a FAQ does not require the latter, although it can benefit immensely from it (the sci.crypt FAQ has a group of collaborating writers, as to many other FAQs). --Vlad Nuri