Re: [GNU/consensus] Consensus on the aims of this group

[Andreas Kuckartz]

carlo von lynX:
> It is no longer clear if people in here are Social Swarm, GNU consensus
> or something else currently using the name #youbroketheinternet. The
> latter just seemed to be the most appropriate name since we can't get
> social off the ground without fixing the Internet first.
> 
> In the past we worked out 
> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/GNU/consensus/berlin-2013
> and reached a consensus on at least these points:
> 
>       - End-to-end encryption
>       - Perfect Forward Secrecy 
>       - Social graph and transmission pattern obfuscation 
>       - Self determined data storage 

I unfortunately did not participate in that meeting but I probably would
have agreed with these items as goals. (I had seen the invitation but
considered most of the projects which were originally mentioned as being
mostly irrelevant.)

But it is unlikely that I would have agreed that improvements of subsets
of this set of items are out of scope.

> These four requirements make it such that any discussion of "improvements" of
> the general situation that does not fulfil them should be seen as out of
> scope for this group of people.

I wonder if all the participants agree with _that_ interpretation. I
guess that I would have been surprised by it...

> Feel free to put some band aids around SMTP, XMPP and other established apps,
> but don't discuss it here - especially not as a solution to our list of basic
> requirements. Let us work on solutions that fulfil OUR basic requirements for 
> privacy.
> This is the only thing that differentiates us from dozens of other similar 
> groups.

That meeting decided what is in scope for the GNU/consensus and the
Social Swarm mailing lists? Really?

I am definitely not opposed to making decisions about requirements and
things which are out-of-scope in a discussion or for a working group.
Such decisions sometimes are necessary. But I doubt that these
out-of-scope decisions have really been made.

And I am beginning to wonder if what I see here is representative for
the CCC...

Cheers,
Andreas