I filed a #FediverseIdea named "Community has no Boundary".
The idea is to define a standardized #ActivityPub vocabulary extension for "Community", based on as:Group where the members (as:Actor) have a collection of as:Relationship to other actors.
Got it. Probably the ongoing effort to federate forges would be an excellent use case, because this overlaps with the FOSS project communities you mentioned. Thanks. That gives me the context I needed.
@mikedev in terms of the group relationship diagram I drafted (see issue).. that wasn't the proper way I guess.
I think a separate Actor Relationships FEP would be in order. Because any actor type can have a collection of relationships to any other actor, and that would be a reusable chunk of vocab that can be standardized.
So too a set of standard relationships that are worthy to be more universally recognized might warrant a separate FEP. For instance parent/child structure relationships.
With all due respect it seems like a bit of overkill. We've got groups, but most of the time the only relationship people have is that they're all members. And if it's a family group, usually everybody already knows what the relationships are and feel that this isn't everybody on the internet's business. And it involves effort to declare your relationship, so there's a bit of a barrier to entry. Don't get me wrong - I'm actually not knocking the idea. I'm just trying to figure out how I might sell this to my constituents, and hoping you can find a way to sell me on it. FWIW, we use groups for topical and BOF discussions and don't really place much value on instances as communities - as some other projects do. Usually our instances include members that have nothing in common with each other. They use groups and circles/aspects to organise around common interests rather than organising around instances. Some of these have moderators and some don't - and anybody in the fediverse can be a moderator. They don't need an account on that instance.
So there are still communities, but they're uhm "decentralised" and very ad hoc. I guess what I'm asking is what value add do you see by providing an org chart or family tree?
@mikedev good observations, and you are right. There's already a #FEP on federated groups, another one on "unbound groups" and likely some flavours of groups in-the-wild. If these are sufficient, that's fine, and by all means to be used.
There are groups/communities that have more structure that one might make explicit. An example may be a FOSS project community where the community roles may be indicated, but e.g. also contributors, donors, sponsors, related community projects, etc.
Add comment