Roger Dingledine:
Hi folks,
In addition to the "get many fast exit relays" plan, that same funder (Voice of America) wants us to run a pile of fast stable unpublished bridges. We'll give the bridge addresses out manually to their target users over the coming months. (...)
We do have some funding for this, but I'm hoping that we can get enough volunteers so we can put the money toward more fast exits and better QA and build automation for the Tor bundles. So if you have good connectivity but can't run an exit, this is a great way to contribute. (...)
I might be overreacting (especially since nobody else replies), but doesn't that split up Tor users in (two) groups?
Instead of having a larger pool (of bridges) for anyone you ask for unpublished bridges which will be handed to "privileged" people.
Volunteers running unpublished bridges and giving them to friends in $restrictive_country is one thing and their private choice. The same is valid for a funder that pays for unpublished bridges. It appears fine to me that a funder can make such choices.
You ask volunteers to achieve a funders goal. Those might run a bridge already, but "un-publish" it. Less bridges for the rest. They could run relays and turn them into unpublished bridges. Less relays for anyone.
Running a relay or bridge (published) would be a better contribution IMO.
Some were "upset" about funding for exits, because the Tor Project could become dependent to the funding. 125+ exits is a huge number, but I didn't "distrust" your judgment. However now I'm upset that the unpublished bridges hurt the network. It's hurting the network to achieve a funders goal. To me that's the wrong way.
Please read "you" as "the Tor Project" and "your" as "the Tor Projects'", because I did not intend to address this to you, as Roger.
Regards, Sebastian