Hmm, yes interesting, @cjs. Crossposting from a comment I just made on the fediverse.party issue:
Imho for the fediverse as a whole it is best if just one site is the authoritative go-to location for AP developers. This gives the most likely chance there are enough contributors to keep things up-to-date.
Maybe (just brainstorming) the separation of concerns could be:
-
fediverse.party: The authoritative Fediverse directory for end-users and techies (given the tech metrics in directory entries). -
activitypub.dev: The authoritative AP/Fediverse in-depth development guide and resource pointers. -
activitypub.rocks: The authoritative AP/Fediverse reference for specifications and future versions/extensions thereof.
Note: This related to your top-level domain --> dev-specific audience
(BTW… love Sauerkraut 
)
For fediverse.party I was thinking of using a Just The Docs Jekyll theme so content creation is pure markdown that anyone can just PR to, and is then auto-published by Github Pages. I’d simplify by creating just 2 teams, one for ‘Site maintainers’ and one for ‘Content creators’ both of them where you give frequent contributors the extra privilege to become members (an incentive to stay committed). Then create one project/board mostly for content creation tasks.
I wonder about your mixing of tech-related and non-tech cultural aspects of fediverse. Separation-of-concern wise I’d say there is a niche for the latter to be a separate thing altogether. Even though I follow mostly techies with @humanetech I still see complaints about the geeky atmosphere on fedi, made by non-technical users.
If the fediverse grows in popularity like we want it to, then the majority of people do not care about all the technical stuff, and those who do will find it easy to get tech in their circles and do a deep-dive.
While this is true, I don’t think you find it easier to get volunteers in a mixed tech/non-tech content environment. Not non-technical volunteers at least. This assumes they care about this mix, while for most non-techies the language we speak is absolutely archaic and obscure (this risks the same pitfall as when we think users like our developer-friendly UI).
BUT… I am highly in favour of targeting a much broader set of technical expertises than this community currently does. UX + interaction designers, project managers, product owners, architects, QA’s, DevOps, (maybe) domain experts, what-have-you… And also different levels of expertise, like e.g. targeting the newbies in these fields more explicitly.
What many AP experts maybe do not realize is that their casual discussions are really high-level for the uninitiated techie (the majority of tech world, many of whom don’t even know about the Fediverse yet). “What the hell are they talking about? I’ll not chime in, but maybe if there’s a summary afterwards I can see if it was useful to me.”
Marketing types love to talk about the “user’s journey”. Well, I guess, this is about the developer’s journey into the realms of AP and very much a part of the onboarding process that is needed, imho.