Thinking about moving the https://c3sets.de git to codeberg to be more open (no need for an extra account at chaos.expert). Are there people out there who would have contributed if it were at codeberg and didn't, because they have no account at the current git?
@stuebinm Indeed both Vervis (the first implementation) as well as discussions on SocialHub haven't had any recent activity. Fr33domlover (one of the devs) is still updating their personal website, but nothing Forgefed specific.
While the Forgefed vocabulary has made it to the GoFed lib (@cj), the main people behind forgefed don't seem to be active.
@schmittlauch @stuebinm Yeah unfortunately I haven't heard much from Fr33 or bill since adding it to go-fed. I also typed up a federation issue with Gitea which, while received positively, it was lukewarm. So ultimately no movement there either.
@cj @schmittlauch @stuebinm @psy User Reserach conducted for @fedeproxy #forge #federation contains evidence that developers are discouraged from reporting bugs when it means creating new accounts on yet another forge.
Federating forges would solve that problem but it's not here yet.
@dachary @cj @schmittlauch @psy tbh, I sometimes think it would already go a long way if we had a better way to use git’s own distributed features — git request-pull and the like are a pretty good idea, but in practice usually come down to using email for everything. Which works (see e.g. Linux, or git itself), but … well, let’s just say email is neither very well-loved nor easy to self-host. But perhaps we could send these things through activitypub instead?
As for fedeproxy: is my understanding correct that it would take e.g. the form of a bot on github which reposts issues/pull requests from elsewhere? And would that bot just scrape through other forges, or does it require similar bots on the other forges and communicates with those instead (also via activitypub?).
Yeah, your first observation is not alone. It is similar to an opinion and strategy expressed to me by Drew DeVault, except he vehemently prefers keeping email as the backend, and has in the past disputed both the (lack of) beloved-ness of hacking on top of email and the difficulty in self hosting in the past. Hence, SourceHut.
(His opinions may have changed, I don't know)
@cj @schmittlauch @psy @dachary I don’t think they have. I look at sourcehut every now and then, and there’s definitely lots of cool ideas in it – but so far it’s never been able to convince me that email is actually the right way forward. It’s just too hard to make secure (the best we have after decades is GPG, and it’s not like people are particularly enthusiastic about it), the transport protocols are either inherently insecure or at least somewhat broken, and using it you keep running into things like greylisting or just outright blocks. Not that e.g. on fedi instance blocks aren’t a thing, but at least there people tend to know about it …
(and tbh judging by DeVault’s blog he also doesn’t strike me as someone I’d personally like to work with, so I never tried to get involved with sourcehut more — reading his thoughts, I kept getting the impression that the whole thing is more a project of nostalgia for a semi-imagined past of pre-github leet hackers on mailing lists, less something that strives to be actively inclusive and easily accessible to everyone, no matter if they fit that definition of “hacker” or not)
There currently is one other volunteer: your contribution will make a big difference 😃
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!