[Freedombox-discuss] Relationship driven privacy

[ya knygar]

> Indeed, and in that "dividing into actionable parts" the problem is
> consensus: consensus that we need to break it down into parts, consensus
> on what parts, consensus on who defined the parts. To me this is
> independent from mailing-list / other communication. IMO it should come
> from TAC / Foundation, but if doesn't the only way I see to make
> progress is to suggest a collection of parts, amend it with other
> suggestions, and convince people it's the way to go. Once we've got
> that, I agree that we could use tools such as Etherpad to work more
> efficiently, in groups coordinated in time (time zone problem pointed
> out by someone else).
>
> I'm not clear as to how that fits with your vision?

I think - let's enlist all the possible software pieces in existing Wiki
(many would see, BTW, why it's so time consuming, comparing to easy Etherpad
linking, for example), i mean - all the possibly existing/preferably
up-to-date/related
projects, then - divide into some working group parts:

It's like that Leaving-the-Cloud part in today's Wiki,
but i think - it needs to be more granulated, more specific like
Privacy in Social Networks,
Privacy in Browsing, Security in Social Networks etc.. It's ok if
there would be double-posting,
in advanced systems
it called tags :)
Along with it - i'm sure - we'll need the detailed enlisting of
existing papers, conferences, wiki's, guru's...
even blogs - that all would help to work real-time with "outer world"
and show the community that it's
not - particularly Debian project but a global initiative.
Since FreedomBox is essentially - an idea, i think - it's a proper
place to try-out this kind of social involvement.

I think, also, it's a good way to encourage consensus  - when people
would clearly see that we are using the
best-of-breed as possible, without any personal considerations.
I'll make a "brave" assumption, but i believe - if FreedomBox would be
shown as a race for win - for any evolving
project, if that evolving projects would see that - if we would be
included, it's the best place to introduce and
receive Global feedback, and, why not, it's a Honor to be used so
massively and make real job for the world
not *only* in demo/academical reality, all the involved would benefit.


> If I get you right, it means 0)
> break into parts, 1) have an overview mechanism that allows newcomers
> and specialized participants to understand what's going on as a whole,
> and 3) have specialized groups document their progress in a wiki-like
> space (and report synthesis of progress in a common space for all
> participants).

Yes, briefly, it's like this - for me, if combine what i'v written
above with part 0)

> I still think a wiki is the best tool for that overview and
> documentation of progress (my humble opinion), but with Etherpad used to
> work in the groups. I don't see Etherpad as a means to provide a clear
> overview of how the project is divided into parts, but rather as a
> developing tool. But I have used that tool very little, so maybe I am
> mistaken?

Here is - http://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201103#13 - some pro/cons list of
what's Etherpad being able to,
Etherpad could provide a slightly clearlier overview with Tag/Topic main list,
I'm a part of the team named XMPP-Concurrent-Confederation-Consortium,
currently - basing in ourproject.org (they use the similar to Alioth
Debian collaboration system, BTW,
not very useful, comparing to GitHub, really)
 community and trying to help Kune project's needs.
The link Wave-OT-XMPP is in Leaving the Cloud wiki section.

We are working on derived from Google Wave/Completely reinvented
OT(concurrent editing like in Etherpad, but more Wave like,
all-including experience) social systems to federate and collaborate
with each other and W3C FSW participants, whenever is possible.

So, basically - we are creating a next-gen of etherpad-like systems,
however we are all in pre-beta, so -
can't help actually - right now, but - as i'v described in "Discussion
system" topic - there are working alternatives,
that could be - what FreedomBox infrastructure need.
ERP specified - like Free Cloud Alliance is working on  -
http://www.freecloudalliance.org
(their are ERP5 "adepts" that i'v heard of -
a very solid system, being used by NASA or kind of - institutions)

> would you be interested in being part of an eventual
> UX group? I understand we have difficulties finding people in that area.
I would be glad to help with my graphic and UX skills, depending on
when and how FBox UX/UI team would be formed, ofc.

Moreover - we (as an XCCC members team) are working on social systems
that, hopefully,
in one or another way could get into FreedomBox.
Now we have C++/Go/Py/JS systems in different states of progress,
and with different inner-design decisions, almost - for every taste.

..Among other we are making  Open Augmented Reality - systems like
http://arwave.org
To be honest - AR privacy and security is far more endangered now,
than most of Web systems FBox
is about to protect,
and deserves far more attention, and far more strict decisions than
there are from separated FLOSS community,
now,
for example if we, as OpenAR will lose:
eventually the proprietary, with closed and/or privacy/security weak
DB's would have the exact "map" of rapidly- updated GIS-orientated
3D(4D with color, as http://pointclouds.org states)
 data from every corner in the world, maybe - with sound if not -
other sensory info.
The most advanced real-time global surveillance ever, if you'll excuse,
probably - already built in with GPS's and camera's in most of modern mobiles.

i'm sorry for off-topic, i'll try to deductively explain AR needs
along with distributed computing promises here, in a few days.
-

..and many other initiatives, so - we are pretty focused on existing plans.
We are all FLOSS licensed and our goals are fully correlated with
FreedomBox "manifest"

Particularly - we have worked in and trying to collaborate with Apache
Wave (formerly
waveprotocol.org) team and among each
other to compete - only on high quality back-end code and systems, not
on front end,
so, i hope,  we'll come up with very nice UI-UX for full-stack social systems,
FreedomBox could use.


That's all i can say now, i need to go-off, excuse me Sébastien,
for such a gradiented message and,
i have no time for insightful reading of your previous message, but,
 generally - all propositions from you so far - make sense for me.