Hey @angus, I don’t know a fediverse address, or I would’ve given a heads-up via a direct mention on this fedi thread:
2024 the year of Forum Discussion seeing standardization in that application domain? 
(PS. I’m just tongue-in-cheek on “Foriverse” in reaction to some popularising “Threadiverse” 
)
Update: Topic renamed based on @devnull’s suggestion to use *sphere.
Late reply, but yes! This is now happening. Julian (NodeBB), myself and a number of others just had a conversation about a forum-specific fediverse working group at https://fediforum.org/
We are going to be holding monthly calls on the specifics of alignment in the foriverse/threadiverse. May formalise into some kind of working group. If anyone is interested in coming please let me know by PM’ing me your preferred email and I’ll loop you in. I’m also going to be reaching out to the Flarum folks to see if they’re interested in coming (is there anyone from Flarum here btw?).
@nutomic we would love to have you there to if you have time. I can share more details via PM if you’re interested. @trwnh likewise, your insight would be much appreciated if you have the time and inclination.
That is delightful news! 
Totally in line with the kind of decentralized ecosystem that is required to see the Fediverse diversify into different domains and new types of application. I hope that many people join the working group.
I am beyond stoked that the foraverse/foriverse is aligning in this way!!! I want there to be a foraverse profile that is as detailed and conformance-guaranteeing as the microblogging/twitter-clone profile, because I really think they’re equal and distinct use-cases with comparable potential to change the world (and that little 10% functionality delta between the two will be bridged soonest and best after both profiles are flushed out and working smoothly internally!)
My only bikeshedding tip is that, for better or for worse, Meta’s AP client is already called Threads and some people already call the Fediverse subset of servers federating with Threads the Threadiverse (obviously Meta would prefer we call it that over, say, the Zuckiverse or the Mediverse) so, sadly, it might not be a safe name to use for the group. It’s a pity, because “threading” UX is totally the killer feature of the forumverse and really names well its unique complementary nature… but alas, competing for mindspace and namespace is always a funding arms race, so I wouldn’t encourage picking a fight with the deepest pockets in the fediverse 
Surely there’s been enough prior art that Meta wouldn’t be able to copyright the name “Threads”, but lord knows life ain’t fair.
Who says it has to be a *verse, anyway? What about *spheres? 
that worked well for blogs.
i claim no expertise or inside knowledge here… just experience with namespaces and an aversion to assymetrical conflicts. would be thrilled to be proven completely wrong here, and not a strongly-held opinion at all. just felt duty bound to mention the possibility
more importantly-- long live the threadosphere and this WG, whatever name either takes! 
Forasphere would be a nice name. Latin “fora” plural, and Greek “sphere” for the vast expanse where they exist: Across the infinite Fediverse, a discussion fabric unfolds, united by magic teleporter travel … 
For Ass Fear?
Im not sure it phonetically reads well.
Very exciting to hear, fediverse working groups are super valuable and highly needed.
On the discussion of naming:
Threadiverse has so far mainly been used to refer to the link-aggregators (Lemmy/Kbin), which are close to forums, but not necessarily the same. This group is now expanding with Sublinks, Piefed and Mbin.
I could potentially see an argument that NodeBB, Discourse (and Flarum?) want to do something slightly different, so more of a foriverse (?), but also the argument that its all similar enough that its worth it to all keep both the threadiverse and foriverse in the same working group.
Beyond that, I do agree with bumblefudge that however annoying it is that Meta stole the name, the moment of starting a working group is a good moment to think about a potentially different name than threadiverse, as there is quite a bit of potential for confusion (plus I dont think threadiverse is a particularly catchy name anyway)
The double “ss” isn’t there. If you enter a morass, you don’t imagine “more ass” (usually 
). The name reads as "for-a-sphere! 
", and that constitutes a fearless motivational slogan in itself… 
I like @devnull suggestion of sphere and be in line with “bloggosphere” (which stuck, even while also not being that catchy. Forasphere is nicely related, and wins the prize in ‘catchiness’, imho)
I think when it comes to naming things you need to plan for how things could be misinterpreted or misconstrued.
As with anything, it depends on the context.
Im sure a big billboard with the brand/word MORASS would be perceived differently than Pete discussing last nights outdoor impasse.
On the specifics of spheres:
There is a longstanding semiotic representation of orbs and control given the shape of our planet.
Naturally, this creates a logical subtlety given that an instance is a subset of the aggregate
(hence the Fediverse logos showing circles and spheres connecting).
Perhaps rather than the sphere the signifier should be emphasizing the travel or movement wrt spheres.
#foraorbit
A vast information canape blossoms and unfolds,
bearing fruit and nourishment to online foragers,
who in turn delight to plant their furtile seeds,
nurture trees-of-knowledge, make them bloom,
to the benefit of all, they bring us mental food.
I feel it prudent to point out that of the terms I am familiar with in these circles: fediverse, threadiverse, blogosphere, etc., I don’t think any of them were planned or decided by consensus 
Certainly I just showerdream up random names… use them if you like, ignore otherwise. I don’t mind whatever name is used. If there’s a name concensus vote or something, I may remember to drop a candidate… or someone else could.
Update: I was still a bit tongue-in-cheek above, and for a reason. Personally I rather have no such names at all for a group of applications that just happen to be of a different type. It can only serve to confuse, depict them as “something else” than the Fediverse, while the goal should be a broadly interoperable fedi of heterogenous apps and services.
Thanks for the invitation but I dont have time for calls. Id be happy to participate in a text-based format, eg in a forum, via email or Matrix chat.
@nutomic completely understood. I fully intend to have minutes made for asynchronous consumption, but we’d love to keep you in the loop and for you to have a voice in any decisions.
Thanks for the support everyone! On the naming front I agree with Julian.
This discussion somewhat reminds me of the “topics” v “threads” debate in Discourse
Whatever it’s called, I’m glad this collaboration is happening. Even though NodeBB, Discourse, Flarum, Lemmy etc are worlds in competition with each other at times, working together on ActivityPub technical alignment grows the collective “pie” so to speak.
Just a note that CDCK, the company behind Discourse, will also be represented in the meeting (i.e. by someone on their staff). And hopefully the Flarum folks too
If you (i.e. anyone else) want to be involved, let me know now (PM me your email) so I can make sure you get the first organisational email.
sure! you can loop me in via
a (at) trwnh (dot) com
Would someone invite software interested in this (e.g., Flarum) here in Software?
