FEP Process - Clarity on positioning: open and inclusive

FEP for me is not a standards process or part of it. It is a proposal process, so we have a central place to collect ideas and discuss them, and should strive to be as open as possible. If someone wants to write a FEP and introduce the Mooo activity and discuss how to best use OICD to do it, they should be welcome to do so. I might even then submit a counter proposal without OICD.

If you want FEP to be turned into a standards process, I will insist on:

  • Clearly stated requirements backed by tests
  • A centralized way to check implementation status

Most FEPs currently do not pass the criteria, so it wouldn’t be a very exciting process.

:100: I actually want to be very clear that FEP is minimally gate kept. Another example beside topics being controversial: People are allowed to write FEPs that have security implications, and they get added without the editors ensuring that we do not create new attack vectors.

If we would want FEP to be gate kept, I would suggest first adding a disclaimer that FEP doesn’t accept security relevant topics, as the FEP editors cannot ensure that the new FEPs don’t create issues.

:100: I think also the communication of what FEP is differs on who is talking about FEP.

From the front page

A Fediverse Enhancement Proposal (FEP) is a document that provides information to the Fediverse community.

I think is an example of what may be useful. It might be informative to explain how crypto scams could work on the Fediverse. If one wants to fight against them, one needs this information.

As for the other examples, we might add a sentence or two somewhere that editors may refuse submissions if they are contraproductive to the goal of promoting the well being of the Fedizens.