the misskey chats are quite different from the way pleroma chats work. They are what we had as ‘conversations’, essentially a different view on direct messages. For a discussion on why they often have a lot of issues, check out https://git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma/-/merge_requests/2429
It’s sad to know that pleroma’s chat impl is not compatible with others (misskey). When sending chats, it seems just failes silently when remote is mastodon/misskey, which is pretty much common in current fediverse.
I don’t see where an ActivityPub representation is mentioned, the doc in the pull request seems to expose a custom API structure. Can you post a link to what you’ve reacted to, please ?
Yes, that’s where I looked too. But the JSON representation in that document is not ActivityPub. They say there’s an ActivityPub part of it, but I saw no indication of one. :(
I’m sure you had a good reason but from what I can see the logic of the messages could be implemented over Notes too, just restricting the one destination actor allowed behaviour server side? Am I wrong?
Discovering Pleroma set me to down the path of finding Elixir and Phoenix the last two months. It’s awesome and the codebase is easy to follow and learn from.
Same; I had never used Elixir before, but I found that adding a new feature to Pleroma was easier than any other experience I have had diving into an application written in an unfamiliar language.
The world has some very real problems. Personally, I think a CoC can help with some of them and is broadly a good idea.
However, showing up on an issue tracker to demand someone else do some work? That’s not part of any solution to any problem, and it’s really damn common. Maintainers of anything with any real use are on the receiving end of it on a daily basis.
Introducing a CoC is a significant amount of community management work. It’s unreasonable to demand that someone else do it because you think it should exist.
I didn’t get the impression that there was any demand here. People know if there is no COC they can find another project to contribute to or another social network to join, and that’s OK.
I’m also not clear on whether the COC being wished for is about the project’s source code contributor community or the social platform user community.
A source code contributor COC does not have to add much work. There are off the shelf COCs like contributor covenant that have a lot of thought behind them. I’ve had that one on my projects and I rarely if ever have to act on it as a moderator. When I do, I can point to the rule being broken as easily as a “no shirt no shoes no service” sign. Having it there may have repulsed bad actors for me, the same way not having it could repulse would-be contributors. Anyway, the potential benefits for a larger project seem high for the effort.
If the request is for a social network user COC, that surely is a lot of work. I don’t know how you’d prevent troll takeovers without a few rules, but maybe Wild West is the flavor they’re going for.
I didn’t get the impression that there was any demand here
Per response upthread, I neither have nor claim any particular insight into plemora in particular.
People know if there is no COC they can find another project to contribute to or another social network to join, and that’s OK.
Some of them, perhaps. Thundering herds of them are, empirically speaking, quite happy to instead cause trouble (for instance, publicly call out the maintainers employers on social media to generate pressure - yes, this has happened, more than once) until they get their way.
A source code contributor COC does not have to add much work. There are off the shelf COCs like contributor covenant that have a lot of thought behind them.
I think contributor covenant is great, and I’ll add it to more-or-less anything I’m going to attach a license to. That’s not the part that’s hard work.
If the request is for a social network user COC, that surely is a lot of work.
The mailing list / issue tracker / github repo is a social network. The contributors to a project form a community, and healthy communities are not formed by edict from on high no matter how morally certain.
Once you have more than 3-4 maintainers, introducing a COC requires a new kind of work between them - one they are probably unfamiliar with - and both the project and the maintainers may come away far worse off for it.
You and I might agree more than you think. The pull request gag isn’t tasteful, and yes a source code community is a community that needs to be moderated like any other. With or without a COC you’re going to do work to address community problems. I guess I just think a COC reduces that work in the long run, and the earlier you introduce it and get the maintainers acclimated, the less complex a migration will be. My experience is with smaller projects than this, so I have some assumptions baked in.
the earlier you introduce it and get the maintainers acclimated, the less complex a migration will be.
Absolutely :)
think a COC reduces that work in the long run
I also think so, but I don’t really have any evidence to support that belief, and plenty of reasonable people disagree with me.
You and I might agree more than you think.
Oh, I suspect we’re 99% on the same page. I’m mostly trying to explain (to people who broadly agree with me) why COCs get so vehemently rejected, because I keep seeing people be absolutely baffled why anyone wouldn’t want one.
Introducing a CoC is a significant amount of community management work. It’s unreasonable to demand that someone else do it because you think it should exist.
I agree that it is a lot of work this is why tried searching it and the discussion on their Gitlab. I apologize if you got the impression from my messages that I was going to just open up an issue about it myself or make any demands regarding it.
Edit: anyways, I got an answer from Icy: they don’t need one
No worries. I was more trying to give some context/explanation for
why do you see the need to belittle people who for example value don’t want to get harassed?
That is - eventually, the steady stream of (well-intentioned!) troublemakers become intensely bothersome. Lashing out at them isn’t a surprising reaction in that context.
That is - eventually, the steady stream of (well-intentioned!) troublemakers become intensely bothersome. Lashing out at them isn’t a surprising reaction in that context.
By the way, are you speaking in general or referencing issues Pleroma used to have/has? Do you have any insight on what the Cofe of Conduct is and whether there has been a community effort on implementing a code of conduct for their community?
I find it interesting that a community comes to a conclusion that they don’t need one, especially with all the trolls and harassment out there.
In general; I have no specific insight into plemora.
Harassment isn’t evenly distributed; it’s entirely plausible that the worst trouble a given maintainer has received was from people trying to pressure them into adopting a COC.
Chats! Let’s go!
Chat really is a nice feature. I know that it’s one of the main things that I found missing in Diaspora back in the day.
Misskey has the chat feature for awhile, nice to know we now have it in pleroma, updating now.
the misskey chats are quite different from the way pleroma chats work. They are what we had as ‘conversations’, essentially a different view on direct messages. For a discussion on why they often have a lot of issues, check out https://git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma/-/merge_requests/2429
It’s sad to know that pleroma’s chat impl is not compatible with others (misskey). When sending chats, it seems just failes silently when remote is mastodon/misskey, which is pretty much common in current fediverse.
You can still send ‘chats’ to misskey by sending a direct message, it’s just a different UI/UX for this.
I’m also glad to see that this is implemented in ActivityPub, and not another external format.
I don’t see where an ActivityPub representation is mentioned, the doc in the pull request seems to expose a custom API structure. Can you post a link to what you’ve reacted to, please ?
I didn’t read it in detail, but from reading the spec, I gathered that it’s based on AP.
Yes, that’s where I looked too. But the JSON representation in that document is not ActivityPub. They say there’s an ActivityPub part of it, but I saw no indication of one. :(
You can find it here: https://git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma/-/blob/develop/docs/ap_extensions.md
Thank you. :)
I’m sure you had a good reason but from what I can see the logic of the messages could be implemented over Notes too, just restricting the one destination actor allowed behaviour server side? Am I wrong?
No, you are correct, ChatMessages are essentially Notes with very specific rules for addressing.
Discovering Pleroma set me to down the path of finding Elixir and Phoenix the last two months. It’s awesome and the codebase is easy to follow and learn from.
Same; I had never used Elixir before, but I found that adding a new feature to Pleroma was easier than any other experience I have had diving into an application written in an unfamiliar language.
After seeing the other post written in forum software (https://lobste.rs/s/nsdgwk/surprising_new_feature_amd_ryzen_3000) I’m wondering whether plemora could also be (ab)used for this purpose.
[Comment removed by author]
Doesn’t need one.
New breed of “engineers” that don’t look at the code and algorithms’ implementation, but if there is a CoC, @lain get ready for a PR :D
Here we go: https://git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma-fe/-/blob/develop/COFE_OF_CONDUCT.md
Can you (or Lain) open up the means of this document?
And with your other comment, why do you see the need to belittle people who for example value don’t want to get harassed?
The world has some very real problems. Personally, I think a CoC can help with some of them and is broadly a good idea.
However, showing up on an issue tracker to demand someone else do some work? That’s not part of any solution to any problem, and it’s really damn common. Maintainers of anything with any real use are on the receiving end of it on a daily basis.
Introducing a CoC is a significant amount of community management work. It’s unreasonable to demand that someone else do it because you think it should exist.
I didn’t get the impression that there was any demand here. People know if there is no COC they can find another project to contribute to or another social network to join, and that’s OK.
I’m also not clear on whether the COC being wished for is about the project’s source code contributor community or the social platform user community.
A source code contributor COC does not have to add much work. There are off the shelf COCs like contributor covenant that have a lot of thought behind them. I’ve had that one on my projects and I rarely if ever have to act on it as a moderator. When I do, I can point to the rule being broken as easily as a “no shirt no shoes no service” sign. Having it there may have repulsed bad actors for me, the same way not having it could repulse would-be contributors. Anyway, the potential benefits for a larger project seem high for the effort.
If the request is for a social network user COC, that surely is a lot of work. I don’t know how you’d prevent troll takeovers without a few rules, but maybe Wild West is the flavor they’re going for.
Per response upthread, I neither have nor claim any particular insight into plemora in particular.
Some of them, perhaps. Thundering herds of them are, empirically speaking, quite happy to instead cause trouble (for instance, publicly call out the maintainers employers on social media to generate pressure - yes, this has happened, more than once) until they get their way.
I think contributor covenant is great, and I’ll add it to more-or-less anything I’m going to attach a license to. That’s not the part that’s hard work.
The mailing list / issue tracker / github repo is a social network. The contributors to a project form a community, and healthy communities are not formed by edict from on high no matter how morally certain.
Once you have more than 3-4 maintainers, introducing a COC requires a new kind of work between them - one they are probably unfamiliar with - and both the project and the maintainers may come away far worse off for it.
You and I might agree more than you think. The pull request gag isn’t tasteful, and yes a source code community is a community that needs to be moderated like any other. With or without a COC you’re going to do work to address community problems. I guess I just think a COC reduces that work in the long run, and the earlier you introduce it and get the maintainers acclimated, the less complex a migration will be. My experience is with smaller projects than this, so I have some assumptions baked in.
Absolutely :)
I also think so, but I don’t really have any evidence to support that belief, and plenty of reasonable people disagree with me.
Oh, I suspect we’re 99% on the same page. I’m mostly trying to explain (to people who broadly agree with me) why COCs get so vehemently rejected, because I keep seeing people be absolutely baffled why anyone wouldn’t want one.
I agree that it is a lot of work this is why tried searching it and the discussion on their Gitlab. I apologize if you got the impression from my messages that I was going to just open up an issue about it myself or make any demands regarding it.
Edit: anyways, I got an answer from Icy: they don’t need one
No worries. I was more trying to give some context/explanation for
That is - eventually, the steady stream of (well-intentioned!) troublemakers become intensely bothersome. Lashing out at them isn’t a surprising reaction in that context.
By the way, are you speaking in general or referencing issues Pleroma used to have/has? Do you have any insight on what the Cofe of Conduct is and whether there has been a community effort on implementing a code of conduct for their community?
I find it interesting that a community comes to a conclusion that they don’t need one, especially with all the trolls and harassment out there.
In general; I have no specific insight into plemora.
Harassment isn’t evenly distributed; it’s entirely plausible that the worst trouble a given maintainer has received was from people trying to pressure them into adopting a COC.
https://youtu.be/KckCsw_JyJI
So, TIL New breed of “engineers”
Can we please leave it ‘Cofe of Conduct’? Or even ‘Café of Conduct’?