Changes to FEP requiring major technical changes

Hi @fep.hosts and everyone else.

Due to interest in

which would be a MAJOR change to FEP on a technical level. This type of change is a big disruption to the FEP process. We impose on everybody with a checked out FEP repository with custom branches to update these branches. So if we want to do such a change (I’m not sure we do), we should get the most out of it.

I’m opening this post to collect changes, we want that require changing how FEP is handled on a technical level.

My own contribution to this is:

  • Get rid of the table in
  • Instead use a statically generated site

I experimented with this once and the result is at Fediverse Enhancement Proposals ... experimental webpage The navigation to FEPs is by the draft / final in the top bar.

The advantages of using a static site are:

  • It can be automated, so manual actions to update is no longer necessary, and can be turned into a pure readme.
  • Presentations of the FEPs becomes cleaner.
  • One has a place to put all kinds of other stuff, like normalizing and collecting references.

PS: We probably want to have a FEP Meta topic and move this post there.


I found that your experiment looked quite good with the Material for MkDocs you used. Such site can sit as a subdomain under the Portal website domain and be referenced from there.

I agree that FEP table should be either removed from, or shortened by only including finalized FEPs (it’s getting harder and harder to reach the “Submitting a FEP” section).
I’m not sure about the static site.

I consider reworking and making changes to FEP, stuff where I will only be involved in one of the two. So I’d like to keep the two projects separate.

They will be separate. I refer to the Portal prominently featuring the FEP that sits in a subdomain.

The current process for changing how the process works is defined in the FEP Process Governance of FEP-a4ed.

In general I believe patches should be kept small and tightly scoped so would prefer to make one change at a time.

Is it possible to address these issues independently?

  1. #196 - Consider switching to sequential IDs - fep -

  2. Readme length/maintenance. We should have an issue to discuss this one. By the way A4ed doesn’t mention the Readme so that’s all been a courtesy since the list started very small. If a valid problem, as a potential solution, I support creating a repo to host Helge’s code and to connect it to a codeberg page.

Cross-linking to the great FEP Crafter created and hosted by André Jaenisch. It also calculates the FEP hash to use, based on the title. The FEP crafter was announced here on Codeberg. Thank you, André :heart: