My understanding of the Fediversity category, based on the discussions that led to its creation, is that it’s a discussion space for people working on references sites about the fediverse (guides and manuals, news, instance mapping, software research etc). The idea was to create opportunities for cross-project coordination, in a similar way to what other categories provide for implementers working on fediverse software and protocols.
A new topic was recently added to Fediversity called Multi-agent Systems and ActivityPub, which is about quite technical protocol-level stuff relevant to implementers. I suggested moving it to the ActivityPub category, but @how replied;
This suggests a very different understanding of what the Fediversity category is for. Perhaps based on ways it has been used during my absence (late 2020-late 2022), rather than the initial vision?
If Fediversity has an established and useful purpose other than what I laid out above, then perhaps we need a new category for the original purpose. Alternatively, perhaps topics about software that aren’t developed enough for the ActivityPub category could go into the top-level Software category. I’m happy to proceed either way, what do @how and others think?
That’s a good description of the forum as a whole. If this is the brief for the Fediversity category, the likely result is that it becomes a dumping ground for anything people don’t know where else to file. This clashes with the original vision of being a coordinating space as I described in the OP.
Does the “yes” indicate that you’re agreeing with what @aschrijver said? Because I read your comment as proposing quite a different purpose to what Arnold’s comment proposes, both of which are quite different purposes to what I described in the OP.
I really want to clarify this, because I intend to put some serious work this year into organising what I’m informally calling the fediverse support network, and a dedicated forum category on a fediverse-related forum is needed for this work.
That’s the advantage of a do-ocracy. If you see fit to improve the category to the benefit of the community… go for it. Though changes would involve seeking community consenus to reasonable extent.
(Note that I find “community” a difficult word, and that imho atm there isn’t one at SocialHub. Community is implied, but too loose to be able to meaningfully steer SocialHub as a whole. Reasonable extent means “not too much” then, as the few people who are proactively contributing also have most say initially)
Sorry @how but I’m still confused about what you are saying “yes” to. In the description I offered 2 options;
… and …
Which of these are you agreeing with? Sorry to be so pedantic, but I really need clarity on this.
Given the discussion about @laurens ’ reports, it does seem that the Fediversity category has an established pattern of use. Although I’m still getting my head around just what the boundaries of that are.
I’m now leaning towards, the first option. Creating a new category called something like “Fediverse Support Network”, or “Fediverse Support Resources”, or “Fediverse Reference Websites”, AP enabled, and with @JoinFediverseWiki and I as category hosts. Would anyone have any objections to this? Any preferences for naming?
Ah I see, you mean the category description, not the thread description. It would have been helpful to specify that.
I’m not sure what this means, but most of the people involved in fediverse reference sites are not developers, and my whole purpose here is to create a dedicated space for us to coordinate our work. I’d appreciate a response to the proposal in my last post;