|
Top-level
 Yea … bottom line summary for me is … If you’re here, chances are you’re not a normal reasonable user and your standards/judgment doesn’t matter if you want any sort of uptake/growth. Fediverse probably needs a good group of product managers willing to say “no, that’s shit”, if growth is desired. 5 comments
Important statements there in the second paragraph, especially around financial capacity! Scaling up was always a question, and you seem to be suggesting that the financial model has a ceiling for the fediverse’s architecture, a ceiling that may have already been reached?  It’s your take! I have no idea how true it is or isn’t, though intuitively, if you poke around here amongst the Fedi-folk, I think you naturally start to worry about both. I personally have been worried about how much software practices don’t seem optimised for collaboration and modularity and how sustainable much of the software work will be going forward. @maegul imho your take on what I said went substantially beyond what I had in mind when I said it :-) I don’t know whether it is true either, but a good question to ponder for sure. |
Gregory's Server
@maegul i think we have several distinct user types in the fediverse today, and the big split is between those who fundamentally think it’s good as it is, and does not need to (or even must not) grow, and those who want it to reach as many users as proprietary networks do, or more.
The second category then tends to realize quickly that this requires lots of expensive expertise we currently don’t have in the fediverse, and much more money that donations can provide.