[ciphershed] Re: Transparency
- From: "Alain Forget" <aforget@xxxxxxx>
- To: <ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:23:45 -0400
Agreed on everyone's points. I think the key issue is that it is of concern to
the CipherShed community is that there appears to be some form of discussions
being done on the community's behalf, but without the community's knowledge or
opportunity for input.
However, I believe we've all been in strong agreement about CipherShed's vision
and goals (and where they historically differed with TCNext's original
mandate), of which Bill has been a very strong voice/advocate, so I would be
shocked if whatever comes from Bill and Jos' discussions would be counter to
our intentions with CipherShed.
Furthermore, as noted by Jos
(http://forum.truecrypt.ch/t/working-with-ciphershed/22/21 ), should he follow
through with his invitation to listen in on their next conversation, I
certainly intend to do so.
At this time, alarm is premature. I advise merely a healthy caution, as we
almost always should with this project. :-)
Alain
-----Original Message-----
From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Niklas Lemcke - ???
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 13:17
To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ciphershed] Re: Transparency
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:05:37 +0100
PID0 <p1dz3r0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Would you like to know what I texted to my friends today too?
>
> Honestly this is being blown epically out of all proportion (and we all
> know who is whipping this controversy up).
>
> Maybe I missed the thread where we elected Bill the official
> spokesperson for the CipherShed project? So he had a conversation with
> Jos, so what? He no more represents the CipherShed project than any of
> us do (no disrespect to Bill of course).
>
> Yes, TC died under mysterious circumstances, but I'm not going to get
> sucked into demanding that everyone associated with the project put all
> of their comms up on the homepage. Why? Because nothing will kill this
> project faster than that kind of witchhunt mentality being spouted by
> some tinfoil hatter in a chatroom.
>
> By all means, you're free to trust or not trust Bill, Jos, or anyone.
> What you're not entitled to do is persecute the man for having a
> conversation...
You're misunderstanding. Also I didn't see anything that guy on irc
wrote (I sleep when he's there), so that's not what made me think of
it. Stephen and others were talking about it.
They can have conversations as much as they want.
And no, neither Bill nor anyone else is our 'spokesperson', which is
exactly why I don't feel particularly good about Jos and him
"discussing the future of tcnext and ciphershed", without actually
having ciphershed in the discussion.
Of course I don't want to know what you texted your friends. It's your
private life. But when the project's future is being discussed I feel
like the project should be involved, and not purposefully excluded.
And I am not persecuting Bill. I know Bill has only good intentions,
and I can make no statement about Jos. I'm just telling Bill that I
think it's weird of Jos to want to discuss the projects future--without
the involving the project's people.
I hope I explained myself better?
>
>
>
> On 16/06/2014 14:30, Stephen R Guglielmo wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Niklas Lemcke - 林樂寬
> > <compul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi everybody,
> >>
> >> Several people voiced their concern about a recent issue on IRC, and I
> >> feel with them.
> >>
> >> One of our most important principles was to be transparency. However,
> >> these days Jos and Bill have had private, non-transparent conversations
> >> on the future of TCNext and CipherShed. To my knowledge they even have
> >> started speaking to a lawyer(?). While I am certain that Bills
> >> intentions are purely good, I am not so certain about Jos.
> >>
> >> I think this is a no-go. I would like to tell Jos that any future
> >> dialogue will either be transparent or not take place. While I do see
> >> that dialogue with TCNext is important, it is not worth undermining our
> >> principles.
> >>
> >> I hope Bill can understand what I am talking about.
> >>
> >> What do the others think?
> >
> > I agree completely. I was going to write a similar post to the list
> > last night, but I didn't get a chance to do so.
> >
> > http://forum.truecrypt.ch/t/working-with-ciphershed/22/18
> >
> > The reference to "a bit that Jos wants confidential" and "less than
> > 100%" forthcoming makes me uneasy. A few posts down in that thread,
> > Jos said we can "listen in" the next time him and Bill talk. Honestly,
> > that's not enough. Information needs to be posted to the mailing list.
> > I don't use Skype.
> >
>
--
Niklas
At the time of writing, no warrants have ever been served to me, Niklas
Lemcke, nor am I under any personal legal compulsion concerning the
CipherShed project. I do not know of any searches or seizures of my
assets.
Other related posts:
