David Sterry @weex@c4.social

@holly Thanks for sharing this! The conclusion I get, seen in bands sloping up from left to right, is that mostly people infect others their same age, but the next significant effect is with those a generation or two older or younger.

In the interest of furthering standards discussion and development on the Fediverse, I'm proposing a change to SocialHub.

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/move-fep-under-a-new-standards-category/2039

@heluecht @nightpool@cybre.space @dansup @yala @humanetech @liaizon @tchambers @grishka @mike @sl007

Thank you Michael for adding your voice. I've worn different hats from builder to archaeologist but ultimately I'm a problem solver.

It would be great to see group functionality start simple because they provide value even if only local to an instance.

Obviously everyone's thinking about how to federate them, which will pay dividends as their boundaries grow beyond the instance, but it seems to me difficulty in achieving consensus around federation has stymied development of the basic thing.

Two books for the C4Social library!

5yo intermittent testing problem

https://github.com/c4social/diaspora/issues/39

I lik this post from @agateblue@mastodon.technology in the ActivityPub library titled "Getting our hands dirty", which is about project governance, the problem that sent me off on the search that found C4 and spawned C4Social.
https://library.activitypub.dev/shelves/web-2.html

@cj@mastodon.technology @humanetech @gert @dansup @pukkamustard That's an impressive amount of activity just late last year and early this one. Saving the link!

@humanetech @gert @dansup Just tried again and I was able to login... FEPs are alive again!

@humanetech @gert @dansup @cj@mastodon.technology @pukkamustard

That's amazing. I found this stuff about federation.md in many projects which is very interesting. Are all of those listed somewhere along with things like the FEPs and AP spec?

@humanetech @gert @dansup Well if you know anyone who can get an access code, please do. I'll definitely make it part of my daily or at least weekly rounds.

@humanetech @gert @dansup
Practically speaking, I've been trying to regain access to git.activitypub.dev for weeks but haven't had any luck. I feel like its home repo needs to be on a more reliable host.

If FEP really failed, then let's do another one based on a proven process like RFC or even BIP.

@humanetech Even with the shades of grey, that's quite clear. Local-only posts are in and I don't think ever going in upstream so that would point toward a name change.

C4Social was created to solve two problems (not enough developers on the fediverse and slow development pace) with the hypothesis that the Collaborative Code Construction Contract (C4) offered a compelling solution.

Core to the C4 is that code is merged not on its content but on the problem it addresses. So from the first moments, feeding the process meant finding code which addresses valid problems. Upstream is therefore the first place you look… and there we found and merged 35 PRs between the two forks.

As people joined, some concerns were raised with this practice:

* First, that such PRs might be work-in-progress and that by merging code before upstream maintainers, we would be taking on additional risk on a patch which may still receive comments and changes.
* Second, if more changes are made and then the code is then merged upstream, we may have conflicts to resolve which might make merging not worth the extra maintenance.
* Third, the author of the patch may be surprised that their code is used on a fork.

Today, there are another dozen or so PRs to look at so this is a good time throw a question out there. Are there other concerns that should be raised about this practice? If you make PRs, would you want to be pinged by a fork?

Maybe dumb question but should forks be completely renamed? Is prefixing enough?

https://github.com/c4social/mastodon/issues/231

If anyone wants to play around with some web-of-trust scoring code, here's https://github.com/weex/wot-server/blob/a3497dc5ba40e1b6958367860254aac1131fd5a8/weboftrust/__init__.py.

Test with `python test.py`.

Extremely curious to see how this would work on an anonymized stream of values, perhaps generated by events like block, ignore, follow, boost.