Hi all,
Mike Tigas:
What do we do about future people who want to work on something Tor-related of their own creation but do not have the socioeconomic means to do it for free? Or if they can't get financial support for it by Tor or the other orgs in this space (because they are not networked enough in this space, or their idea isn't in a current funding area, or etc)? What does it mean if the projects and viewpoints of the "extended" Tor community only represent those who already have the means to work on things like that?
What I'm getting at is: I think we shouldn't lose sight of developer-accessibility and community-accessibility as we try to reduce the barriers for our users. (I think these all go hand-in-hand?) Having more people working on this and more diverse representations of cultures and experiences involved in this will only surely make us better.
I do think this *is* noted well by the same point in the Social Contract, regarding free ability of use and adaptation and redistribution. But just wanted to air that out since I'm not sure that view was represented here. (Again, quick thought. Possibly half-baked / incomplete / etc.)
This is a VITAL point and I'm so glad you brought it up Mike. Here's a line from the revised point 3:
"Ability to pay should not be a determining factor in access to our tools or services"
Do we feel that "access" here covers not just users but potential contributors? I know you said yes, but I want to be certain that we cover this because it's essential.
Alison