Usage of PRs for FEPs

I moved this to a new topic, as it doesn’t related to FEP-bad1

Continuing the discussion from FEP-bad1: Object history collection:

I currently do not have the mental bandwidth to think about changes in how FEPs are discussed. Thus I regard SocialHub as the primary place to discuss FEPs.


Fair enough. My personal opinion is that I’d like to see the discussions in the PR comments since it’s more closely-coupled to the FEP issue and just announce new FEPs here.

The PR is usually merged as part of the submission process, so comments aren’t expected on the PR. The primary spot is the forum here, and I suppose there’s also tracking issues, but this recent spate of PR comments has been an exception to that.

1 Like

Authors usually update FEPs after receiving feedback from the community. Without a dedicated thread discussion would be fragmented across multiple PRs.

@trwnh and @silverpill Thanks for the explanation. I’ll continue writing my comments in Discourse.

It’s already becoming fragmented between Discourse and (one or more) PRs. That’s why I was asking about it.

My general feeling and feedback from over on the Fediverse is: If we want more diverse participation in FEP, we should use tools most people are comfortable with. Pull requests, git, and so on … are tools made for the software development community. To be inclusive, we should stick to Discourse.

We should probably even invest the energy to offer an alternative way to submit FEPs without needing to use


Totally agree. Having conversations fragmented between PRs and Discourse is already confusing. It’ll just lead to duplicate conversations and points being reiterated.

Seems more plausible to just use this forum for FEPs. Then once you have enough consensus, then open a PR for it. I personally think FEPs should have a brainstorming and feedback period to gain consensus before a PR is created—not after.


Prior discussion:

Another good thing about keeping FEP discussions here in SocialHub is that there may be more meta, non-tech conversations around them, or maybe just ideas from people who aren’t ready to make them FEPs yet, which are more likely to happen here.

The forum already has an FEP category, and it has an RSS feed to make getting updates easier.

Open RSS has made RSS feeds for Codeberg issues and pull requests, so you could follow the movement there as well.

FEP Pull Request RSS feed:
FEP Issues RSS feed:

1 Like

It will also be fedi-capable soon.


I think the two-venues approach (code-specific on codeberg-or-equiv threads, holistic on discourse-or-equivalent public forum) is the right balance. I also work with multiple other __IP processes at my dayjob and some of them suffer from only one venue (non-specialists ignored), or too many venues (following two IPs becomes a fulltime job, no way to combine streams like RSS does).

Case in point: on another thread here, people have been trying to think through an exhaustive list of user-stories for account migration and UX expectations thereof. @tchambers found something almost exhaustive in the wild, written in the form of a personal essay and published on a personal blog, containing this delicious line of catnip for the governance-nerds like myself:

We shouldn’t underestimate how shouty github can feel to the vast majority of earth’s non-backticking population, or how intimidating a specialist/inward-facing venue like socialhub can be, no matter how inclusive and good-vibes the code of conduct, to someone who gets the details of mastodon and bluesky mixed up off the top of their head. High-quality input from the outside world is generally quite expensive to harvest pro-actively, like those “user interviews” that megacorps fund entire UX research departments to collect; it doesn’t just drift in off the street because we left the door open.



New Fediverse Enhancement Proposals are announced on the Fediverse. One must follow

1 Like