Gregory's Server@liaizon LOL I’m teasing.
Also I don’t think it’s necessary to label it.
What is the organization type? How is it governed? How is it funded? How is it moderated? How can members get involved? — those are some of the important questions.
|
12 comments
  @liaizon structures are more nuanced than that, especially internationally. “Is paid”, “has a legal structure” etc likely more appropriate @boris I wasn't proposing that 'isCoop' would be the only attribute and we could get as specific or as vague as we wanted. Right now we have no system to aggregate this type of information. And just trying to figure put what structure these things have at the moment is quite difficult even for me and I have the ability to directly ask all the people running them since I am already here. Imagine coming into the fediverse as a new comer and trying to figure out who the most collective instance is @liaizon I’m not arguing against it, I just don’t think it’s something to automate. If you make it some joint space (GitHub repo, shared wiki), orgs can fill it out on their own or others can ask / fill out an about page. I’m pleased to see folks like Kissane tag CoSocial alongside SocialCoop — because it is the core of why we’re doing it. I’d love to help more co-ops take the step. @boris I am not proposing to automate adding this information. The idea I was that if there was a way for instances to semantically describe their own structure so that information could be easily showed to outside parties who are trying to understand what instances are run responsibly and fairly and have the chance at longevity. Personally I think github is the worst place to have to go for this info. Wikis are great but unless every instance uses the same wiki we are back to the same problem @liaizon I’ve run large amounts of “fake APIs” on GitHub. Basically a set structure that then runs a GitHub Action to turn all the info into a single JSON file that can get published. Happy to talk more about this and get a sample going in the CoSocial repo. I’ll do an example I understand the nuances of “GH means only devs can update” hence also my wiki comment.  @liaizon @boris that sounds great. Would enable new ways to semantically and even visually map out the structure of the #fediverse . @liaizon I think that’s in fact BECAUSE of the structure. They’re all un-incorporated personal projects? Or do those people run it through an LLC or Corporate structure they own? In which country’s jurisdiction? SocialCoop and CoSocial would both have “the techops + trust & safety teams” as “admin” as they are co-ops. And it also erases any other (volunteer? paid?) mods on those systems  @liaizon @boris "it struck me how all of these "galaxies" have a defined single admin" Funny enough I think this is an argument in favor of "constellation" though. If something revolves around one person calling it "the constellation of [admin name]" feels more appropriate than "the [admin name] galaxy". "The [x] galaxy" evokes more of an idea that [x] is the main topic or theme of that group of services. |
@boris I agree fully that those are super important questions to answer. When I was making that chart it struck me how all of these "galaxies" have a defined single admin (cause there is no way to easily list a number of people as "in power" in most of these pieces of software. I have been thinking about how we could expand the scope of NodeInfo to include more metadata about funding and power structures and paths of involvement that can then be easily resurfaced by tracking software