Scope of the SocialHub Policy

[eprodrom]

Does this policy apply to FEP discussions on Codeberg?

[aschrijver]

Good question, @eprodrom. I’d say it does, but implicitly. The FEP process originated from this community, and discussions take place here. But like many aspects of the process it hasn’t been given additional consideration, nor formalization.

[helge]

@aschrijver

The FEP process originated from this community, and discussions take place here.

I also made this point here. It would be very bad to start fragment the community even more by discussing FEPs both here and in the codeberg repository.

[strypey]

@helge

It would be very bad to start fragment the community even more by discussing FEPs both here and in the codeberg repository.

I second this. I’m not sure how such decisions are made though. Two possibilities occur to me;

• The cat-herding(1) consensus method: we just keep talking about it wherever affected people gather, until consensus emerges organically. When it does, people will follow the majority who are actioning that consenus.

• We defer to the Social CG to decide matters involving fediverse protocol standards work, and ask for decisions about them to be formalised at those meetings. We then communicate those decisions across all relevant dev watering holes, to be actioned.

Thoughts?

(1) Please let me know if the cat-herding metaphor bothers you. I’ve explained my understanding of what it means and why some of us use it here:

Strypey (@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)

TL;DR No offence is meant to any human beings (or cats!)

[helge]

@strypey

I second this. I’m not sure how such decisions are made though.

I believe SocialHub and FEP are mostly governed by the DoOcracy principle. So it’s just the usual utopian “Do as I do”-world.

[strypey]

@helge

So it’s just the usual utopian “Do as I do”-world.

That’s the sane default, yes. But my point was that it’s not the only option.

[aschrijver]

The reason for DoOcracy is that anything else requires dedicated volunteers putting loads of energy in and willing to do unthankful chores, effectively volunteering as “cat herders”. Offloading that to SocialCG would not bring much change to that, except maybe if SocialCG brings more authority to the table (e.g “give feedback until this date, otherwise this is the adopted approach”).

[strypey]

@aschrijver

Offloading that to SocialCG would not bring much change to that, except maybe if SocialCG brings more authority to the table

It seems self-evident to me that as the current W3C group for ActivityPub standards, the SocialCG has the ultimate responsibility for any AP update process, and therefore more legitimacy on that process, than any other coordinating body. Fediverse.party could issue an “official” consensus on where FEP development ought to take place, but most people would ignore us, and fair enough.

Whereas if a consensus is formalised at the SocialCG, in a transparent, public-facing way, then devs are fairly likely to either go with it. Or get the issue raised there again, to explain why they disagree with said decision, and try to get it changed. If that’s not true, what’s the point of standards bodies in the first place?

It’s akin to the process of getting Open Source licenses recognised. Sure, the OSI has no formal power to make anyone treat a given license as Open Source, or not. At the end of the day, each person can make that assessment for themselves. And yet, the OSI clearly has a tremendous practical influence over what is and isn’t counted as Open Source. As well as providing a transparent structure for challenging and adjusting those boundaries, as necessary.

[eprodrom]

Thanks. So, if I have a problem with how someone is behaving in PRs on codeberg, what do I do next?

[aschrijver]

If that person is a member here, then it can be brought to discussion on this forum. It may be brought to attention in a Well-Being topic, and well-being to mediate. OTOH if the person is not a member but just someone with a Codeberg account, then the options are more limited. A friendly reminder to behave can easily turn into heated exchange and completely derail the issue/PR discussion. Forgejo, the software that Codeberg runs, will get more moderation facilities that allow e.g. blocking a person access to repo’s and org.

[strypey]

@eprodrom

if I have a problem with how someone is behaving in PRs on codeberg, what do I do next?

I’m aware it’s been a long time since @eprodrom posted this. I only saw these last couple of replies after the topic because I’m revisiting some CoC-related topics, after a discussion elsewhere raised the question of whether the FEP process operates under a CoC.

Had I seen Evan’s reply at the time, I would have asked whether this was a hypothetical question, or whether there was a live issue that needed to be addressed. Because the answer to that question determines the urgency of answering Evan’s question. If it’s a purely theoretical question, we can take our time to work through our ideas on moderation of the FEP repo, in a leisurely fashion. If it’s a live issue, we’d need to prioritise reaching a rough consensus as quickly as possible, so the issue could be addressed.

I’m hoping that either it was a hypothetical, or the issue got dealt with at the time in a way that hasn’t been recorded here.

[eprodrom]

I ended up withdrawing the PR. I had adapted the proposal in the Stanford Internet Observatory’s Child Safety report into a FEP to start the discussion process. I was attacked personally in the comments, and the FEP wasn’t allowed to be merged. I don’t think it helped our movement to have such vigorous opposition to developing CSAM filtering standards.

Child Safety on Federated Social Media

[eprodrom]

This is the conversation in question.

WIP: PhotoDNA Attestation extension (CW: mention of CSAM)

[strypey]

@eprodrom

FEP wasn’t allowed to be merged.

That’s not necessarily a CoC issue, depending on the reasoning.

Case study: The guy who develops the Amethyst Nostr client for Android is really grumpy with F-Droid for not listing his app. But that’s because it can’t be built from source, as per F-Droid policy, and he’s not really willing work through the process of resolving that.

But if the reason for refusing to merge is that the people controlling the repo just didn’t like it, or didn’t like you, that’s a CoC issue.

@eprodrom

I was attacked personally in the comments

This is unacceptable, and is definitely a CoC issue. But if the people controlling the repo are the ones attacking you, I’m not sure how to address this other than proposing governance reform. As I mentioned in a recent topic about the future of SH, Nathan from social.coop has offered to run a governance forum. Perhaps this would be good to do for the FEP project too?

[aschrijver]

I find it rather disingenious the way you are ‘rubbing open old wounds’ here, while you yourself are accused of breaching the CoC and do not deign to resolve that matter using the well-being procedures that are in place here. Instead you come here again with your combative style, insinuations of malintent, and ‘break it all down, go elsewhere’ advocacy, right in the midst of this large and until now productive soul-searching that comes with the reboot of the community.

If I look at the pull request in question, there was thorough discussion at the time, where at one point I intervened, to highlight the nature of the FEP process. And subsequently I opened a discussion topic adjacent to the PR, to discuss process improvement. See:

FEP Process - Clarity on positioning: open and inclusive

In order to avoid misunderstandings on the nature and role of the FEP Process with regards to Fediverse ecosystem evolution, I think we need to further clarify the position of the FEP and how SocialHub relates to it. For the 3-stage Standards Process proposal, I already mentioned to @stevebate and @evan who had concerns, that SocialHub is just a facilitator of the process, and in no way a gatekeeper. And also that, while there’s a default discussion thread at SocialHub for each FEP, authors may…

If you want to be constructive to formation of a cohesive and decentralized fediverse ecosystem, you might inform yourself on a lot of good ideas in the recent discussions that have taken place around the community reboot, and the broader relation this has with the fediverse at large, since SocialHub through federation has all fedizens as its audience.

[silverpill]

@strypey

But if the reason for refusing to merge is that the people controlling the repo just didn’t like it, or didn’t like you, that’s a CoC issue.

The PR was marked as WIP and we didn’t formally reject it by closing. It was closed by the author.

But of course, proposals could be rejected, especially if they are not aligned with the goal of the FEP process stated in FEP-a4ed:

The goal of a FEP is to improve interoperability and well-being of diverse services, applications and communities that form the Fediverse.

I argued that some aspects of the proposal are not compatible with that goal (for example, implementers were required to use a Microsoft product). Other facilitators might have different opinions on the subject.

---

I didn’t see any personal attacks in the comments, but maybe I missed something?
The whole discussion is still available at #140 - WIP: PhotoDNA Attestation extension (CW: mention of CSAM) - fediverse/fep - Codeberg.org.

[eprodrom]

I am not sure who you are talking to. I did not revive this thread. @strypey asked a question about my previous post, and I answered it as truthfully as I could.

[aschrijver]

I know. My response was fully to Danyl, and I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear enough. I can imagine that at the time what was discussed was not fully resolved, despite attempts to do so. We have Share what you want SocialHub to be ongoing now, and I was happy to see you participate as well, thank you.