It's probably less of a problem now that the fediverse is much bigger (than it was 5 years ago). But one of the things I've heard puts newbies off alternative social apps/ networks is too much meta-discussion about development and deployment of the apps/ networks themselves.
Maybe we could agree on a standard way of tagging this stuff (eg #FediDev)? Then the DevMeta tag could be filtered out by default for newbies.
(1/3)
Re: It's probably less of a problem now that the fediverse is much bigger (than it was 5 years ago).
Right, which ActivityPub.Space follows and auto categorizes, which ends up as a way for microblog content to make its way into the threadiverse. @strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
@silverpill@mitra.social sorry for interjecting 😁
(2/2)
Would it be inappropriate to draft an FEP for this? One that addresses;
* #FediDevs (or whatever) as the standard tag for fediverse dev meta
* Filtering out posts with the tag by default for new accounts, unless they opt-in to receiving them
* Auto-adding the tag to all posts output by developer forums like SocialHub and ActivityPub.Space
* Methods like the ones @julian describes above, for ingesting and making use of posts with the tag
* ?
That way, we can use the fediverse to coordinate fediverse development, even more than we already do;
But without as much risk of bombing newbies with posts that probably only interest the subset of people keen to discuss the nuts and bolts of fediverse development. Software devs, admins, mods, protocol geeks, reference guide maintainers, etc.
Also, we're less likely to get low effort or out of context noise injected into such discussions if they're opt-in.
(2/3)
We could instead try to agree on a separate place for all discussions about fediverse coordination (would it rub anyone up the wrong way if I described this as fediverse governance?). But it does makes sense to discuss a federated network *in a federated network*, rather than a separate, centralised forum. Once it's possible to do so, why not use the one under discussion, rather than a different one?
(3/3)
Re: It's probably less of a problem now that the fediverse is much bigger (than it was 5 years ago).
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz said:
We could instead try to agree on a separate place for all discussions about fediverse coordination (would it rub anyone up the wrong way if I described this as fediverse governance?). But it does makes sense to discuss a federated network in a federated network, rather than a separate, centralised forum.
I keep harping on this one point because it just makes so much sense that it'd be silly not to. The new blood (new software devs implementing AP) always appear on fedi, not some third-party site, first.
To your main point, fedi on Mastodon is all just everybody talking in the same room. Certainly that's why it seems like there's so much meta-discussion about AP.
This isn't the case on the threadiverse, where discussions are segregated/categorized by community.
At the risk of splitting hairs ...
@julian
> Mastodon is all just everybody talking in the same room ... This isn't the case on the threadiverse, where discussions are segregated/categorized by community
Forum apps offer one set of tools for navigating to the conversations we want to take part in. Microposting apps offer a different set. But the underlying data layer reality is one big room. Whatever is posted in the threadiverse is also a drop in the microposting ocean.
Re: It's probably less of a problem now that the fediverse is much bigger (than it was 5 years ago).
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz is that true, though? Mastodon doesn't segregate topics by interest group or community because that's a UX decision by Mastodon. It's a wilful ignorance of explicit categorization by design.
Now, I want to be very explicit here that I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Mastodon doesn't have any major incentive to implement groups, much less implement them like the threadiverse does.
But it is by design that it's all lumped together into a singular feed.
