@dansup wait whoa wait

I just saw your posts about adding activitypub support to GNU social literally a few minutes ago right before I saw this message!

What happened? I'm sorry to hear you're having problems... especially because the work to get ActivityPub into GNU Social seems really important!

@cwebber Hello, thanks for all the amazing work you've done with ActivityPub. I'm still working on a php ActivityPub library. I was trying to contribute to GNU Social but couldn't get any response, which is frustrating. I closed a few merge requests like git.gnu.io/gnu/gnu-social/merg and decided to focus on something else.

@dansup Sorry to hear that. Thanks for your efforts... maybe / hopefully things can be mended, and I appreciate your work on activity(streams|pub) stuff regardless!

@cwebber @dansup Same here. This often happens with projects with small numbers of maintainers, but it feels it's important to either be honest about the status of GNU Social (effectively unmaintained), or get more maintainers.

Dan, would you object if I ping Rob and Mmn, using your merge requests as examples? Would you be open to being added as a maintainer if they're up for it, or are you well and truly fed up?

@eloquence I've spoke with @mmn already and we disagree on a few things (like composer support) so I'm not sure how much I can contribute besides the stuff I've already done.

@dansup @mmn

Fair enough! I read through the composer discussions on git.gnu.io/gnu/gnu-social/merg and it looks like the final suggestion (to simply add the `vendor` directory to the repo to avoid implicitly requiring the use of GitHub for distribution) was never addressed; am I missing something?

@eloquence Nope, adding the vendor directory would address that issue. Its a shame because I was quite excited after playing around with adding some features that would have made refactoring a lot easier. git.gnu.io/gnu/gnu-social/issu



*nod* I would expect a GNU project to have a pretty high standard of purity on these things, but this seems like a reasonable solution to me as well.

@mmn, since you're tagged on the thread now, if you have a sec, I'd be curious what the current state of GNU Social is from your perspective ? If the goal is to maintain it, are more maintainers needed so PRs don't languish and discussions don't stall out? Thanks for all your work on the project, in any case :)

@eloquence More maintainers is always desirable! Though it's not like they're lining up, as far as I'm aware of .)

I'd say the state is usable, unlikely to go through major changes (in functionality, but adaptation for #ActivityPub for delivering would be great - but things like federated pseudoprivate messaging or such scoping is unlikely to be implemented since there's no guaranteed way to keep confidentiality).

@mmn Thanks for the response! IMO it's unfortunate that contributors are giving up because they don't see a response to MRs for weeks (see further up thread); the last repo commit was 3 months ago. I would just note that people rarely "line up" to become maintainers -- they may be willing to take on that role if their contributions are well-received, and they're then encouraged to do more.

Regardless, thanks again for your work on GNU Social & your response here. I do appreciate it.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

social.coop is a coop-run corner of the fediverse, a cooperative and transparent approach to operating a social platform. We are currently closed to new memberships while we improve our internal processes and policies, and plan to re-open to new folks when that work is complete. [9/2/2018]