Howto facilitate the fediverse for its own development?
The lack of deeper integrations between different app types and the federated identity issue (every instance their own signup and user acccount) form significant barrier to widespread collaboration is my general observation.
For instance in any well-received toot with a link to a SocialHub forum topic on average no one takes the effort to respond on SocialHub. Mostly the discussion remains microblogging, and then it sinks into history when activity peters out. The insights and collective knowledge isn't gathered and lost.
For instance in any well-received toot with a link to a SocialHub forum topic on average no one takes the effort to respond on SocialHub. Mostly the discussion remains microblogging, and then it sinks into history when activity peters out. The insights and collective knowledge isn't gathered and lost.
Howto dogfood the fediverse for fediverse development?
I agree on this topic of “dogfooding”. I think the aversion stems from people perceiving what fedi currently offers as still insufficient / too immature set of tools, or just not knowing how to best wield fedi.SocialHub
This entry was edited (2 years ago)
like this
Fediverse Futures reshared this.
Liwott
in reply to smallcircles • •This would also bring some more centralisation of Fediverse development, in that for example every new fedi platform with a "comment" feature should be able to post a comment on that central forum.
Now when a platform A wants to send a message to an unknown platform B, it will preferably try in that central dialect.
So that becomes an advantage for discoverability that platform B be able to also receive in that dialect.
So a part of the problem of interoperability reduces from compatibility between each pair of softwares to the one between each software and central forum.
Would that be desirable? I think so.
like this
Liwott and smallcircles like this.
smallcircles (Humane Tech Now) reshared this.
smallcircles
in reply to Liwott • • •smallcircles likes this.
Liwott
in reply to smallcircles • •like this
Liwott and smallcircles like this.
Liwott
in reply to smallcircles • •like this
Liwott, smallcircles and RaphJ like this.
smallcircles
in reply to Liwott • • •A way forward may be to 'just do it' and use existing apps & tools as-is, and see where we end up. But its a bit risky, because when it doesn't work we'll have a lot of knowledge and discussion stuck in different places and should do manual migrations to gather them.
The biggest problem fedi has is finding people willing to spend the time to do non-app related community work, which is very time-consuming, and also oftentimes an unthankful task.
like this
smallcircles and Liwott like this.
Liwott
in reply to smallcircles • •On the other hand, as you point out yourself in the original thread, the problem with having that out of the fediverse is that it fails to gather opinions that tend to stay lost somewhere in a random fedi thread.
So, even without going as far as integrating discourse inside the fediverse, it would be useful to at least be able to embed a fedi post into a forum message.
But of course, it will be better if, in some (I hope not too far) future, it becomes possible to just convert seemlessly fedi exchanges into forupm threads and vice-versa.
I mean beyond the explicit link sharing that you do so extensively everyday, the network should stop relying on you to do its own job 😁
like this
Liwott, smallcircles and jon r like this.
smallcircles (Humane Tech Now) reshared this.
smallcircles
in reply to Liwott • • •I will make some more cross-references. Haha, yes sometimes I feel like a link-sharing bot 🤣
Standardizing on a common Community domain as AP extension?
SocialHubLiwott likes this.
smallcircles
in reply to smallcircles • • •This highlights the importance of using federated tools for fedi development, but also with the added requirement that there are no single points of failure in that (If lemmy.ml would go down, then would !fediversefutures@lemmy.ml still be accessible?)