On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 03:27:45PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> =- James Cameron wrote on Sat 22.Mar'08 at 10:17:15 +1100 -=
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 02:44:52PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
> > > I would be happy to volunteer to build binaries except that as
> > > far as I am concerned that's a position of trust, both within
> > > the circle of developers and within the community and I do not
> > > feel I have earned that level of trust within either group.
> > 
> > The trust need not be isolated to a single individual ... if the
> > build process is described to the point of falsification, then the
> > trust can be shared. Think of the scientific method, where no
> > scientist trusts anothers results unless they are reproducible,
> > and reproducibility depends not only on the truth of the findings
> > but also the documentation of the experiment.
> Now... this is "just a game". And it doesn't even cost money.
> It doesn't need to be scientifically foolproof.
> It needs more people participating.

So you think that participation by more people is more important than
the reliability and rigour of the blessing process.  Interesting.  You
place more value in votes than results.

> Why can't verification be handed over to a trusted 3rd party?
> Like with certification authorities on the web.
> =- James Cameron wrote on Sat 22.Mar'08 at 10:35:42 +1100 -=
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:50:58PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> > 
> > > What about a trusted community, supporter, servant?
> > 
> > We have that already.
> *sigh*
> Now you, too, ignore the context of that question.

The context was there, and I saw you had said of others that the context
was ignored, so I tried really hard to perceive the context.  But
evidently I failed.  I think you have done a bad job of establishing

(Mind you, about this time last year we were demanding that you include
context, and ask simple questions rather than long ones, so I suggest
that the real problem is a semantic barrier rather than a formatting

> It was not a general question, but for the specific case of the
> process to produce blessed binaries on platforms not available to
> you personally.

My specific answer was "We have that already."  Since I included
context, I didn't need to say "We have already got trusted community,
supporter, or servant, for the specific case of the process to produce
blessed binaries on platforms not available to me personally."

> > The client developer has the community's full trust. But the
> > process they go through lacks transparency and is impossible to
> > verify unless there is build process documentation. It is
> > impractical to verify without build capability.
> > 
> > Our key list manager also has the community's full trust. The
> > process they go through to approve a key is more transparent and
> > verifiable.
> Ok, maybe my perception is wrong then, since I had the feeling
> people desired more than was currently offered.
> Or you're talking again about something entirely different than I
> was.
> With key-management I connect a set of features declared "valid", so
> players can rely on "fair play" when they use different clients.
> You apparently only refer to the blessing process alone. This
> doesn't serve anything except to verify that the code originates
> from his author, but not what the code does.
> The latter is the desire, which isn't fulfilled yet.

It is fulfilled.

> If the purpose of the blessing is not "fair play", what is it?

For you, the purpose appears to be ...

1.  maximise the number of people involved in the process so as to
create a sense of popular approval of the process which will have a
greater weight than technical analysis,

2.  waste the time of Bronco developers as a means to make Paradise

> Can we make it work for "fair play", too?
> Do we want that? Some obviously do besides me.
> If not, why not?
> > { rest of comments }
> ... are missing the point as a consequence of misconception.
> > Rado, I'm finding your method of encouragement offensive,
> > unwelcome, idiotic, and incompetent.
> Maybe because you and I don't share the same interests in the game.

I don't get to play against you.  You're never on pickled when I join.

> But definitely because we don't share the perspectives on how to
> achieve success.
> > Alternative, if you wish to self-improve and learn how to engage
> > this developer community efficiently, read the book _The Hacker
> > Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age_ by the Finnish
> > philosopher Professor Pekka Himanen. Perhaps you can find it in a
> > library or a bookshop. Please your native language version.
> It's a pity you still believe in "there can only be one way to
> success, and that's mine alone".
> But then again we might consider "success" differently, too.

I don't care for success.

Kill-filed for a month.

James Cameron    mailto:quozl at us.netrek.org     http://quozl.netrek.org/