=- 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.
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.
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.

> 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.

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

-- 
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.