Social CG Issue Trackers

Community
1

Motivation:

information note towards a more complete followup to this resolution swicg/27

Status of this Document

Drafted based on ACTION from 2021-04-23 SocialCG call.

Comments requested to help ensure this links to all the relevant issue trackers this community considers important.

Social CG Issue Trackers

This is a mapping of SocialCG Topic Area to an issue tracker where community members can file issues.

If there is no subproject-specific issue tracker, use:

On Multiple Issue Trackers and Consensus

If there is one issue tracker, there is an numbered ordering that would let the group process issues one-by-one. With multiple issue trackers, there is no obvious ordering on how to process issues from each issue tracker ‘queue’ (e.g. round-robin, chronological, etc.).

Issues can be filed without consensus of the group. They can also be discussed ad infinitum based on individual decisions. If the group were to attempt to work on all issues, the group would be subject to denial of service attacks. Thus, it may be best for the group and calls to only spend much time on issues that the group adopts by consensus. See “On Conflict and Consensus” for one definition of Formal Consensus.

Recommendation

If possible, resolve issues outside the meetings. If you file an issue, set a reminder to check on it weekly to see if you can close it or consider it resolved without action in a meeting. If you’d like to raise attention in a meeting (2 minutes), request a small amount of time in a meeting to present the issue verbally, and request comments async.

If an issue has been open for awhile, and you think a group discussion could unblock it (not always the case), propose a Work Item in the group, which we can try to adopt via consensus. Reasonable objection to this would be:

Work Items related to protocols MAY result in a deliverable of a Fediverse Enhancement Proposal:

1 Like
2

I would like to propose hosting our repo’s on a different code forge than Github (except for the W3C spec repo’s which must be on github).

  • It aligns better with fedi culture, and decentralization movement, would appeal to fedizens.
  • It adheres to the what FedeProxy is also aiming at: breaking the hegemony of GH walled garden + dev FOMO

On Codeberg I have https://codeberg.org/fediverse and can add any members to that org. Codeberg is:

  • Very active community with a quickly growing amount of members.
  • Exclusively for FOSS projects
  • A Gitea instance, and large contributor to Gitea project
  • Having Gitea team members on board (i.e. the one that’s most enthusiastic about ForgeFed impl)
  • Based in Germany, and funded by donations

We might also consider moving the FEP repo there. It would alleviate @cjs (and any other members) from the burden of having to maintain the host.

3 Likes
3

One of the big issues is time involvement, and any process and formality takes significant time. Ideally someone would ‘chase issues’, rally and motivate others if needed.

We have created FEP, but until now it is nothing more than a paper tiger. It is stalled. For instance, my last feedback on the process remains unaddressed for a month already. Same with tons of issues in this community.

Before defining process and ceremony imho we should address Organizing for SocialHub Community Empowerment.

2 Likes
4

This may belong to the ActivityPub Test Suite topic, but in case it’s of interest for the SocialCG I’d like to point to @Sebastian’s GitHub - redaktor/ActivityPubSchema: An inofficial proposal for ActivityPub - JSON Schemas (draft 07), especially the blocking issues that span 2 of the 3 issue trackers we mentioned last time.

NOTE There are blocking issues that need to be resolved before we can go on:

5

ActivityPubSchema is a nice project. I had it starred, but now also added to AP dev resources watchlist and will mention on the FEDERATION.md → Murmurations topic, as it may have applicability there.

6

Re: FEP. Both @cjs and @pukkamustard have said they are positive to a move to Codeberg. Also asking @lain about their opinion and consent.

1 Like
7

Unanimity achieved as @lain has expressed no objections on the fedi. Nice to see some momentum building here!

8

Probably this weekend I will fork the FEP to Codeberg and start setting up some organization. I think it is important that a whole bunch of people have high privilege on the repo’s there, so there’s always someone to approach if a PR needs merging or some other task done.

As a starter I would like to ask if current people involved with FEP want to be part of that. Referring to @cjs @pukkamustard @lain @weex and @how. If yes, then can you DM your Codeberg account name to me (and other contact details for display in the README), so I can configure things.