 Extremely happy to announce that @kissane and I have been funded by @DigInfFund to run a project called Fediverse Governance Successes & Gaps! We will look at the people, software, and processes of the Fediverse, and make strong recommendations for how open source projects, philanthropic funders, civil society organizations, and others can co-create a Fediverse that is safer and better for humanity than the social media we've been stuck with for decades. More here: 56 comments
  @darius @kissane @DigInfFund wow what an awesome future you two will bring! I canβt wait.  @darius @kissane @DigInfFund Wow! Congratulations to you both! π This is wonderful news.   @darius @kissane @DigInfFund I can't think of two people better qualified for this endeavor. Congratulations! Very much looking forward to the results.  @darius @DigInfFund @kissane oh damn thats awesome news! congratulations to both of you I cant wait to see what comes of this  @darius @kissane @DigInfFund this is huge!!! I recently facilitated a discussion at the Nonprofit Software Development Summit with Fediverse users and the quality of governance was the biggest determinant of whether people had had a good experience or not on Mastodon and other Fediverse platforms.  @darius @kissane @DigInfFund two brilliant and kind people. what an incredible team. excited for you both!!   @darius @kissane @DigInfFund congrats! This is important work - now more than ever. And it looks like it's in some capable hands. Onwards. no one has unlimited resources of course, but this is a sampling question. One has to make choices, and the question was about why you made the choice to reduce your analysis on medium and large size instances. Indeed, If there are 10 000 small instances and 1 very huge one, why are you choosing to interview the huge one ? It is impossible to prevent sample bias when planning interviews, but this one seems unnecessary ?  Assuming that "medium" is logarithmic, i.e. about 1000 or so users, there are a few hundreds of these - so you presumably intend to subsample these medium-sized instances, e.g. aim at 10-20 interviews. Splitting up into e.g. 5-10 medium and 5-10 small instances would increase the sample error and bias, as @jcolomb said, but also increase the chance of better studying all scales: big + medium + small. The risk of the big crushing the small seems like a significant governance question. @boud @darius @jcolomb I would also argue that a βmedium and largeβ runs a significant risk of skewing heavily white, and mostly male. Plus the fact that itβs folks from the US, with US money, on a network that for once isnβt as dominated by American interests and governance as almost everything that came before. @mejofi @boud @jcolomb It just occurred to me that we might not be talking on similar terms here: for me the break point for "medium" is about 150 people, where it is unlikely for everyone to know everyone else. Because to me that is a place where governance mechanisms become necessary rather than just a good idea. I talk about this in https://runyourown.social Re: the American thing, it's a valid criticism and I am trying to be mindful of my biases. We want an international sample for sure. @darius @boud @jcolomb I would still be wary of excluding BIPOC folks that way, though, so Iβd argue that you should probably be correcting for that in a parallel track that doesnβt select based on instance size. As in, also talk to folks on Black-run instances, for example, even if they are small. @jcolomb @darius @boud Weβre focusing on governance models, rather than eg software, so we're also choosing primary subjects who work at or beyond a minimum level of complexity. (An instance for 15 friends *should* have minor risks and governance challenges, though there are outliersβand huge instances are their own kind of beast.) By the time we begin work in 2024, we'll have "medium" more narrowly defined, but I expect wide variety in size.    @darius How do you plan to account for your inherent biases, such as being two Americans, with American funding, limiting yourselves to medium and large instances only, even though that's not where most of the fediverse is, as a network? π€ @sindarina perhaps I should say that to me, a medium-sized server is something bigger than about 150 people, essentially one where it is not likely for everyone to know everyone else. To me this is the point where governance begins to really matter. I don't know if that changes how you feel. As to the American thing, it's a valid concern. I try to take a global perspective in what I do, and to ensure that my sample is not just US or English-speaking servers. @darius Hmm, OK. Weβll see what it looks like when you're done, I guess π  This is fantastic news, I am so excited to hear about new #funding initiatives to further the open web and the critical infrastructure that underpins it. For so long we've had innovation in this space funded by silicon valley money and incentives, and it's high time somebody stood up and said that model isn't working for the common person.  @darius @kissane @DigInfFund this is AWESOME news, congratulations to you both!  |
Gregory's Server
@darius @kissane @DigInfFund Congrats!!!!!