[Freedombox-discuss] Working Groups

[Henri Asseily]

> 
> Now, the idea of FBox has evolved into something which has mesh
> networking (even not requiring DNS), has anonymisation as well as
> serving as a separate 'Internet'. While there is no doubt that these
> ideas are interesting and useful, there should be a progression of
> stages through which the FBox will pass through to reach this goal --
> and not try to do everything at once. This has to be clarified. From
> the discussions on this ML, to me it seems like at least a network
> protocols and privacy/identity distribution WG should be created.
> 
> Once it has been agreed what will be there in the _first_ release of
> FBox, setting up WGs will become easier.

I fully agree that things should be done in steps. Furthermore I am quite confused as to why one would want the FBox to be essentially the identity of the user himself, and not simply be a user-managed repository of services for the user, which can and should be easily replaceable/duplicable.
To me, the architecture of the software should be one that is heavily abstracted, with everything as a service with API entrypoints, and service configuration being automatic (think zeroconf). Therefore, necessitating thoughtful consideration as to what/how/where that core user-centric config data should reside.
I think we need a working group for that kind of skeleton work which would help into bootstrapping services on a stepwise basis.

--
henri.tel