Collected feedback
NOTE: This is a wiki post that anyone can edit.
Where FEP is unclear
- The role of FEP’s is not clear enough (@hrefna, @stevebate, @aschrijver)
- What constitutes even “the Fediverse”? (@trwnh, @stevebate)
- Unclear if FEP’s are a) part of standards, or b) extensions (@hrefna)
- Stages in 3-stage Standards Process seem indicative of a).
- FEP’s as-is are not part of a standards process, just “ideas to discuss” (@helge)
- Does maintaining a centralized FEP directory bring enough value? (@stevebate)
- In comparison to decentralized/federated/domain-specific blogging or aggregators.
What FEP should be
- Minimally gate-kept (@helge, @aschrijver)
- Able to deal with controversial submissions, to an extent (@silverpill, @helge, @aschrijver)
- Line is crossed when people don’t want their name associated with FEP process (@silverpill)
- FINAL status is the author’s decision, not up to consensus (@silverpill)
- Editors may refuse FEP submissions, this should be documented (@helge)
- Editors should not be seen as gatekeepers or supporters of FEP’s (@aschrijver)
- FEP process gives no guarantees about security (@helge)
- Security aspects are for the FEP author’s and implementers responsibility.
- FEP as standards process MUST have: clear requirements, tests, impl status (@helge)
- FEP’s should be categorized to clarify their purpose (@stevebate, @aschrijver)
Suggested improvements
- Use repeated reinforcement to clarify (@hrefna, @aschrijver)
- TL;DR Statement on README + each FEP SocialHub discussion thread (@aschrijver)
- Patient trust building (@hrefna)
- Categorize the FEP (@stevebate)