I just finished reading this massive thread about standardizing “groups” on the and how we want them to work in the future:


The thread is a massive discussion between @humanetech @dansup @sl007 @mike @heluecht @grishka @nightpool @tchambers @yala @weex

I tagged them here in case others who do not partake in the socialhub forum have followup questions or concerns regarding the shaping of the fediverse, as this is a participatory space!

@yala I loved your participation in this thread and how far out of “tech” you brought the discussion. I think we need more of that in the standardization process to remind ourself we are building the fabric for future inter-human interaction

I was mainly posting about this thread here to encourage more people to go read it because I think there are many important lessons to be had in reading between the lines there. Tagging recent AFK human I have had discussion with about these issues: @notplants @cryptix @cblgh @powersource @adz @manyver_se

@liaizon I opened and skimmed it, but I would need a TL;DR because the thread seems focused on AP technical details that make it hard to abstract and see common problems and common patterns with other decentral communities

@nightpool @dansup @yala @humanetech @liaizon @tchambers @grishka @mike @weex @sl007 This discussion is interesting as well, since different types of people come together: The pragmatic ones and the perfectionists and inventors. I consider myself a pragmatic person who just implements existing ideas, but does not invents. So my (already implemented) idea for groups is just like the way is working: People can create posts, mentioning the group, the group will then repeat this post to their followers. This is working well with many AP implementations.

On the other hand there are the people who think that a group actor shouldn't be treated like a personal actor. And groups should do more than redistributing posts.

This is a quite interesting discussion. I'm not participating that much there. Mostly since I already said how we are doing it. And I guess I will then have a look at the result and have a look if it can be implemented as well. Like I said: I'm an implementer 😀

@heluecht @nightpool @dansup @yala @humanetech @liaizon @tchambers @grishka @mike @sl007

Thank you Michael for adding your voice. I've worn different hats from builder to archaeologist but ultimately I'm a problem solver.

It would be great to see group functionality start simple because they provide value even if only local to an instance.

Obviously everyone's thinking about how to federate them, which will pay dividends as their boundaries grow beyond the instance, but it seems to me difficulty in achieving consensus around federation has stymied development of the basic thing.


@humanetech @dansup @sl007 @mike @heluecht @grishka @nightpool @tchambers @yala @weex

I have 2 groups (forums) on Hubzilla with mostly AP people. As in new Hubzilla 6.2 the posting to group via AP Direct message started to work I am going to announce it and then it depends how anybody would like to use it. AP people can try to make groups on Hz and see if it does what they expect because from theoretical developer discussion it is hard to understand. I like it and to say something one has to experience how the communication situations look on different sides and it takes some time.

@orx just noticed this message now :( somehow missed it lol. I haven’t used Hubzilla groups at all I guess I should go experience that for myself. What instance are you using lately?

@˗ˏˋ wakest ˎˊ˗ is my main hub. Reg should work, when I see u there I can put u into member class, so no need to worry about low channel and storage limits.

@michal oh lovely will surely sign up so I can test the new group features on that side!

@liaizon the tension between "make everything public, for safety" and "let me have private groups, for safety" is wild. Is there a solution?

@creek Solution is let the group owner/moderator (or members) decide.

Personally, i've had enough software where developers think they know better than me what i want.  I mean Microsoft for example was excellent in that when I had to use it.
The only thing that matters is that whatever way that people use to post to a group should work exactly the same whether the group is public or private. This is Usability-101.

Unfortunately, posting to a group via mentions or hashtags doesn't fit the brief for private groups. Mentions and hashtags allow people to also post to the public or also post to a rival group simultaneously and leak the private group content.  

For a private group you can use a single-recipient DM or a drop-down to select the destination. Or post to the group wall. Or post to  a group collection. Or something else. I don't actually care. But not mentions or hashtags - because they fail for private groups.  And then you create these usability issues because people will eventually need to learn a different method when they encounter private groups (either today or in the future) and get confused about when to use one vs the other.

The best time to get this right is now.

Or we can just let the fediverse evolve ad-hoc as it does now and keep the 6-7 different mechanisms we have today and support them all and confuse the heck out of everybody.
@Zap I am fine with DM. I think tagging the group for automatic posting can be easily abused for spamming with never ending autorepeats. Tagging should mean notice to the moderator who can post to the group after checking what it is, or the way to communicate with moderator.

There is different fediverse software and different devices so we can have web interface of one software, mobile version, website of other software and other software's mobile app... those screens all should be clearly readable in terms of what is happening and what are the ways to interact - consistent and predictable who receives what in that situation.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
wakest's server

the personal instance of Liaizon Wakest