Posting to tor-project@ as recommended: Greetings all. Just a quick note on the NYC event focused on running relays. The goal isn't to build a labor-intensive meetup, but rather to have bi-monthly events which address different aspects of the project's work while simultaneously connecting with different audiences. The meeting was structured with a 20 min or so presentation, followed by over an hour of discussion. The vast majority of people in the room spoke. There was a short wrap-up at the end. At least half the attendees went to the bar afterwards for more discussion, which is a good barometer for the level of interest. The discussion covered a very vast array of topics, from recommended hardware and local ISPs, to how DNS works on the Tor network and consensus, and that great old topic about the life of a relay from birth. A core person from HOPE was there, and we informally got an ok for a free table. At least we're on the radar. There were 22 people in the room, which wasn't bad for the first meeting. The Tor blog post was great to have, as were the posts to relays@ and talk@, but we should figure out how to broaden the reach for the next one. I wasn't personally disappointed, but I assumed the attendance was going to be higher. If we can begin to loosely build networks in a number of locations, we are in a better position to engage the larger community. Local networks could allow the TPO to respond to different external events more effectively, such as a remote censorship crackdown. It could mean, in a place like NYC, having more hands on deck to manage a table at HOPE. It doesn't have to be just in places where there are core TPO people, once a general approach propagates, but people in places like SF, Seattle, Berlin, Amsterdam, Santiago or in university towns should definitely consider at least a one-off event, catered to educated guesses of what would be relevant. But to reemphasize, it's a lot of effort to maintain a full-blown user group with, say, monthly meeting, speakers, etc. We don't have to set the bar so high. Periodic events, without necessarily maintaining any strong continuity between them, is possible since there is such a large critical mass of vaguely Tor-engaged people. Responding to different censorship events, for instance, can be addressed more effectively with loose networks of familiar people. If the next event attracts a different audience, maybe focused on TB, or PTs, some development topic, or whatever, then great. Casting and recasting a net bringing in new people who maybe aren't interested in the last meeting starts to give more people better familiarity with TPO, and encourages them to increase their commitment. There are other side effects. The notions about Tor being some USG front, or whatever loopy ideas thrive the internet, weakens when people interact with others using or contributing to the TPO. Conspiracy theories die hard in the real world. I am apprehensive about proposing new mailing lists, as it can disperse audiences from talk@ and relays@, in our case. But there may come a time when a low-volume NYC list, for example, makes sense to address more local concerns, such as discussing ISPs, data centers, relay installfests, etc. At this point, I'd argue that keeping it in the current channels probably makes the most sense. Input from others onlist encouraged. This is a more general issue everyone can brain dump into. g -- 34A6 0A1F F8EF B465 866F F0C5 5D92 1FD1 ECF6 1682