[Freedombox-discuss] Working Groups

[abhidg@gmail.com (Abhishek Dasgupta)]

On 14 July 2011 18:13, James Vasile <vasile at freedomboxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The idea of working groups has been proposed a few times by a few
> different people. ?From my point of view, this seems like a good idea.
> It's time.
>
> There are two questions here. ?First, what working groups should we
> form. ?Second, how shall those groups operate? ?I think if we answer the
> first, each group can answer the second on its own. ?I'm happy to
> arrange hosted infrastructure to the extent debian.org or github don't
> suit.
>

There should definitely be a separate WG for user interface
discussions, which so far now, has not received much attention on the
list.

Also, until there is a clear roadmap of the stages in which the
FreedomBox is going to come, it is difficult to specify the range of
the working groups. For example, in the very early phases of this
list, the consensus seemed to be just have a computing space which is
cheap, very easy to maintain, under my own control and can do basic
stuff (email hosting/cache, calendar, content aggregation, status.net,
fileserver) as well as functioning as a router if need be.

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.

-- 
Abhishek