Which makes me think about @Sebastian’s remark during last meeting that #software:redaktor-me is working on similar features as #software:discourse – but since @discourse team is keeping us waiting, I’m wondering how we can envision a soft-fork of the SocialHub to Redaktor.
Hopefully we can start with adding web hooks from Discourse to Redaktor, or have Redaktor subscribe to Discourse and relay it to the Fediverse. Of course it would be so much simpler if Discourse would simply announce public topics to the Fediverse, since the lack of ActivityPub support in Discourse starts becoming a recurring issue with a growing number of my interlocutors.
Funding.
Or I will get back to journalism next week.
The ActivityPub ecosystem reached a maximum of unfairness.
Journalism is still journalism.
We wait for 3 decisions at the moment.
What is easy to solve are the layouts and federation of posts.
E.g. screenshot below.
What is not so easy in terms of federation is what makes a category and a topic.
In terms of ActivityPub and C2S etc. it would be easy but there is mastodon, how could we “bridge” it …
What is easy as well is internal groups like staff in discourse.
What then is not easy because we never had time to resolve the debate with others:
What makes a “group” in ActivityPub and are there “private” and “public” ones.
Very different concepts exist around groups (all nice) like gup.pe with e.g. activitypub acting as a public relay (“working everywhere”) to full fledged vocabulary flows which then again are not supported by a big player.
We should speak about this.
And some things would change as it should be close to the ActivityPub Vocabulary.
Imagine a socialhub user. It would not be a single Actor but a “user” who can have different Actors:
For example if a staff-member grants permissions to Application or Group then the “user” could have
1 Person, 1 Application, 2 Groups
and e.g. Application goes to the Software “Category” / Collection etc …
If Mastodon does not support ActivityPub standard, I do not see the relevance of supporting it.
From Discourse POV, the difficulty lies in the trust level system. They fear that having remote users would make it difficult to make it work. But I see it much more simply. There’s already a notion of staged users for people who participate in a discussion by email but never registered on the website. So an ActivityPub user would be staged as well, and would only ‘build trust’ when they register a local account on the instance.
But back to topic. The advantage of Discourse concerns the ways you can cross-reference things and build up knowledge, plus the seamless integration of Markdown, quotes, and OneBox, etc. The group situation seems like a complex one to solve and should indeed be shared with the rest of the AP ecosystem… Ah, OK, let’s see the FEP then
redaktor received rejections from NGI0 and NGI DAPSI after Kirschner/FSFE and them encouraged us to apply again, we got the message that “CMS are never funded” and it needs a MVP.
Meanwhile I talked with Dr. Tristan Henderson of St. Andrews about an accompanying student program, however:
So, @how let’s just forget all this ideas …
I was in negotiations for closed source today and I am verry sad.
