forgefed
forgefed copied to clipboard
forgefed
No fediverse IDs on the ReadMe page on this repo
I want to flick you a couple of quick links. Looked for some fediverse accounts on the ReadMe page so I didn't have to annoy you by opening an issue, but I couldn't find any so ...
Had an interesting chat today with Drew DeVault, developer of Sr.Ht (https://sr.ht/), and a few other drive-by commenters. Started here: https://niu.moe/@Wolf480pl/100320867300504833
Mostly pretty circular, but there was some discussion of specific use cases for a tool like GitPub, and a few potentially helpful posts about where the email-based functionality built into Git might be more useful than the AP protocols. Like: https://cmpwn.com/@sir/100328515339900975
there is an email address on the README - that is an ID on the email fediverse
Email is indeed federated, but it's not part of the fediverse as the term is commonly used. I assumed that because you were working on an ActivityPub based spec, you would be familiar with 'fediverse' as a unifying term referring to the network of sites that support federation using either OStatus or ActivityPub. My apologies for not being more specific. If it would be helpful for me to resent those links to the email address on the ReadMe page (without joining that email list at this time), I'm happy to do that. Just let me know :)
On Sat, 07 Jul 2018 06:10:56 -0700 Danyl Strype [email protected] wrote:
Email is indeed federated, but it's not part of the fediverse as the term is commonly used.
aw thats a shame - maybe it should be - email is very robust and ubiquitous - in fact i am replying to this via email now
it was not the terminology i was poking at but the implication of "No fediverse IDs on the ReadMe" - that poses the issue as some sort of oversight or error - the group has no formal home server yet; so there would not be any fediverse ID to publish - the conversations are taking place via email because that is the most universal communication tool; and it accommodates people who do not use any "social" websites, which presumably are the entirety of the fediverse currently
a better title might have been "some external links of interest"; though its not clear why you think those links would be of interest to the group - the first one seems to be about ppl who are interested in what this group is doing; but that does not imply that their use-cases have anything novel to add to the design of the protocol (maybe you could elaborate) - the second link seems to be about using email instead of activity-pub - though i would agree that email would be suitable for the business features; it would not satisfy the "social" "tweet" features that people want - activity-pub seems to be the tool that most people agree can handle both of those tasks adequately; so there is no need to require both - to both of those concerns, i can say that the consensus is to make the spec as generally applicable as possible to any use-cases that invlove version control (any VCS) including raw patches - that means that the email features of git in particular would not be considered becuase they are specific to git
do feel free to write to the mailing list or use just this github issue tracker - people in the group are reading this as well; but rather than posting links, it would be better if you could just describe in your own words what you have read that may of importance to the technical discussion
On 2018-07-07 16:45, bill auger wrote:
it was not the terminology i was poking at but the implication of "No fediverse IDs on the ReadMe" - that poses the issue as some sort of oversight or error - the group has no formal home server yet; so there would not be any fediverse ID to publish
Again, my apologies for making assumptions that may have been unwarranted. I assumed that a group working on an AP-based spec would have at least one member who was a user of an AP-based app, and could act as a point of contact for the group. Discussions on AP and related technologies often take place on the fediverse, sometimes among people who were involved in drafting or implementing AP and its subsidiary protocols. Having one of your group members monitoring such communications may be a source of insights that are useful to your efforts.
- the conversations are taking place via email because that is the most universal communication tool;
This is totally reasonable. I'm not suggesting that you replace your email list with a fediverse contact. The two serve different functions, as described above.
though its not clear why you think those links would be of interest to the group
I expect this would clearer to someone looking at them from a fediverse account, where they can more easily browse the branching discussion threads, not just the two individual postings linked. They can also provide corrections or ask for clarifications on any given post. If any of your groups members have fediverse accounts, I encourage them to have a look through that discussion. Otherwise, feel free to ignore it for now.
I have asked Drew to write up a blog post explaining why he feels that the email protocols are more suitable than the AP protocols for federating code forges. If and when he does so, I will make sure it's drawn to your attention via your email list. Keep up the good work.
i did not say that no one in the group used those things - i think the majority of people in the group do - i was only saying that this group does not have it's own infrastructure - there has been discussion about that but it does not exist yet - is it not the entire point of federation to be self-sufficient and not to rely on third party services? to do so would be an invitation for the obvious criticism: "why isnt this group dog-fooding?"
On 2018-07-07 18:09, bill auger wrote:
i think the majority of people in the group do
Great! Maybe one or more of them would be willing to have their fediverse address on the ReadMe as a point of contact?
is it not the entire point of federation to be self-sufficient and not to rely on third party services?
Perhaps for some people. For others it is simply to have a system that is not centralized under the control of a single third-party provider, so that people have the choice to either set up self-hosting, or choose community-hosting from third-party providers like FramaSoft or Disroot.
to do so would be an invitation for the obvious criticism: "why isnt this group dog-fooding?"
If you would prefer not to have anyone in your group list their fediverse account on the ReadMe in order to protect you from such criticism, fair enough. But perhaps the potential benefits outweigh such a risk?
but what benefit would it be to splinter the conversation across multiple venues? the discussion is happening already among the members - most of the discussion is in the past actually and the real work has begun
anyone may send a message to the group - and this github repo is for discussions among the wider community - adding any additional channels now would only dilute the conversation
anyone may send a message to the group
That is actually not true - the list is moderated to members only, for writing. Anyone can however participate here on the github issues. I agree about not splintering discussion too much.
it is monitored but not restricted - koala put the email address on the readme so that non-members could write in - he is monitoring it but he would pass anything that is useful
If someone decides what goes through, it's the same thing :) I'm not arguing here, I'm just saying it's not an open list.
someone has to do that filtering or else it is inviting spambots - as soon as the fediverse becomes populous enough they will feel the wrath of the spambots too
i think that if this group gets its own infrastructure, that it could run it's own messaging platform to replace this github discussion and possibly the mailing list too; but for now, this github repo is fully open to all github users and koala and several others are reading everything here too
@strypey If you want, you may find me on https://mastodon.hk/@yookoala. But since this is supposed to be a group work, I am by no means the "official contact point". It is much preferable to have your comment created as an issue in this issue tracker.
@yookoala sure, as per the rest of the comment thread, a point of contact is about feeding potentially helpful info that comes up in fediverse discussions into the GitPub working group process, not moving GP discussions into the fediverse. See the links in the OP for one such discussion.
I have asked Drew to write up a blog post explaining why he feels that the email protocols are more suitable than the AP protocols for federating code forges.
Just for the sake of completeness, since this was discussed here, here's Drew's blog piece on the potential of using Git over email as the transport for web-based code forges: https://drewdevault.com/2018/07/23/Git-is-already-distributed.html
... and a resulting discussion on Lobste.rs: https://lobste.rs/s/h1udkf/git_is_already_federated_decentralized