A couple more are listed in the Guide for new ActivityPub implementers: Federation.md paragraph.
Can, or might generate? Didn’t see code that does that now. But it is good idea, and can serve to keep project-specific federation docs decentralized and within its own codebase.
The delightful-club project by @yarmo gathers decentralized
README.md from sub-list repositories using Codeberg CI to build: https://delightful.club
Yes, sorry, I meant that it might generate. As far as I can tell, existing pages have been added manually.
I added two more. The next thing one can do, when seeing a new ActivityPub thing, check for the file, and if it’s not there annoy the author.
I created an issue in fedidocs about aggregating
FEDERATION.md and a related toot.
This is a good “native” source Do-ocracy - Noisebridge with this reference in mind, am trying to find the connection between the title and the content of the thread.
Maybe it is this the is currently a growing stress between #WC3 working with formal consensuses and #socialhub working with a mixture of #NGO/ attempting grassroots/#mainstreaming process. Let’s try thinking of this positively as messy consensus
I think there is a consensus on socialhub that the #W3C path is ossified and slow, but we have no working consensus on how to be different. We do have #NGO grassroot small working parts, and libertarian cats fitting and purring.
NEXT STEP: Have we step up a meeting to talk to the WC3 about what we are trying to do? I have talked to some of them, they have wisdom to add to this.
I had another idea to contact one of the statistics projects about including FEDERATION.md. However,
So there doesn’t seem to be a good option.
It would also be good to convince one of these implementers to turn fep-f1d5 into something specifying what they actually need for their statistics.
@dansup may be interested to think about extending https://fediverse.info
Yes, as you describe it is the general idea. Combine the best of both approaches. The diagram in the wiki topic shows two branches coming from activitypub.rocks website, of for formal process, the other for grassroots. They are separate but can take all kinds of inspiration from each other and cross-pollination.
I just saw your toot about prepping fedidb.org for a launch. We discussed in the past ideas/plans you have to open up this initiative and get a community of collaborators going for its further improvement and extension.
It looks like there’s many points where fedidb.org can hook into the new initiative of @gabek and @j12t to launch fedidocs.org and crowdsource its contents. From a FediDB app entry you might jump into techdocs for that app at FediDocs, for instance.
Providing such cross-initiative links would be very beneficial to the Cohesion of the Grassroots Fediverse.
I just created a plea to the FediDocs initiative to minimize the fragmentation of our still tiny developer community in FediDocs let's bundle forces, and not fragment further! And the same appeal applies to FediDB, which can also have a FediDB dedicated forum category and repo’s under https://codeberg.org/fediverse with its own teams and membership.
Do we need a Process for our DoOcracy?
Yesterday I suggested that the SWICG might need a process to close open issues in AS/AP W3C repositories on Github. Related to that…
Do we need a process to follow up on topics discussed in this forum? An action repository under https://codeberg.org/fediverse where issues are tracked, assigned and dealt with.
This forum is full of people suggesting actions, making proposals. Who’s following up on that? To whom are the proposal made? Well, to whom the glove fits in true DoOcracy fashion. But these action points are spread all over the place.
One example: In FEP-1570: The FEP Ontology Process @melvincarvalho makes several proposals:
These are candidates for having issues tracking them.
I’m unsure if tracking progress or non-progress for the Fediverse Enhancement Proposal Vocabulary would make the process smoother. I think the main problem currently with the process is that everybody gets distracted on technical details … The first goal of FEP-2e40 is:
- Create a FEP Vocabulary based on identified best practices
If one would use issue tracking, this would be the first issue, all other issues are blocked until it is resolved. I’m not convinced this would get done. Also I’m not convinced people would then obey the best practices.
Side note: The vocabulary section of json-ld-bestpractices is still on “editor’s choice”:
'ap-socialhub' profile points to
I noticed ap-socialhub (SocialHub) · GitHub interacting on the W3C repo’s, and having
Collaborator privileges in them as well. I assume the
ap-socialhub account is operated by @how.
But its relationship is unclear. Github allows a detailed markdown to be displayed on the profile page, and we could use that to provide all the necessary pointers to not only this forum, but the FEP on Codeberg, etc.
ap-socialhub account was made to integrate the ActivityPub repository there with the #activitypub:issues conference here (which is restricted because I never managed to triage the issues and bring comments there…) I’m not sure how it came to point to Codeberg, but I guess it’s a good thing. Maybe @nightpool or @weex remember something about it.
Ah, it is not point to Codeberg. But independently of what existed on GH, the FEP emerged and was moved from Cory’s domain to
fediverse organization on Codeberg. Since FEP is a major process that we at SocialHub should keep going and growing, we might make that relationship. A profile README can be used to attract attention to what SocialHub is all about…
Here’s another person that wonders about the state of the activitypub.rocks website:
Unfortunately after sending 3 emails I did not get response from @cwebber about plans for the domain.
Given that we managed to essentially break FEP over the last few weeks, I’m not surprised one might be hesitant to wade into the currently needed maintenance.
If you don’t think FEP is currently broken, I open https://codeberg.org/silverpill/feps/ more often to look up FEPs nowadays than the official FEP repository. Getting out of this mess will be hard. I don’t think I know how, or have the energy / patience to figure it out.
Is that breakage related to this PR by @silverpill who makes some fixes? There’s some PR’s pending and one with more fixes to submit. I may have time tomorrow to merge, but would also ping other FEP editors @fr33domlover @Dodecahedron @helge and @weex (who has been most active thus far).
There’s some uncertainty regarding directory structure (currently being discussed in adjacent FEP-a4ed thread).
(silverpill/feps - feps - Codeberg.org is just a sandbox where I’m working on proposals. I will submit PRs to the main repo when the normal process resumes.)
DoOcracy is a democratic, largely messy consensuses based aproch to “governance”.
It’s not a native “liberation cat” path that most people take, are we on the same path in this space: Do-ocracy - Noisebridge
Use little-c consensus
If you’re concerned that a change may be a little too impactful to just do, and you want to make sure it’s ok to do, speak to the people who are likely to be impacted. Be willing to find outcomes that everyone can live with.
If you dissent with a doacratic motion, start a conversation, blocking without engagement to find compromise is not excellent.