> if the challenge of knowing what Fediverse Apps implement which bit of the spec is a blocker, is there a standard way to declare which bits of the spec an app is conformant in?
The #ActivityPub #FEP process keeps a list of implementations, in each of its documents. The FEDERATION.md was once introduced as "something to start with before going more complex wrt introspection", a temporary bandaid to bring improvement. Its adoption and use, and later its description as a recommended practice are going very slow though. Still, a very useful practice, compared to lacking such doc and perusing foreign codebases for the info.
> does the Fediverse need a democratic membership org that funds core maintenance of FEP and pays for some of the core community maintainers to keep looking after the ecosystem.
That might be a good solution. For part of a much bigger problem. No #funding bakes bread yet.
I addressed this with @nlnet in the past, and intend to bring it up again next week.
It is the right ask though. The ask is: What are ALL the moving gears that make sustainable #FOSS (i.e. #SOSS) be produced, and in an entire healthy technology ecosystem at that.
My investigation around commons based social dynamics started when I had basically given up "trying to herd cats" at #SocialHub where it was already clear that most people didn't much beyond the interest for their own #ActivityPub project, to mingle in the discussions. I mentioned at the time in various thread "Do you want 'community-of-action' or just a mere discussion forum. But even for those questions there's hardly anyone interested.
I knew all this already from my time facilitating Humane Tech Community - now dormant, waiting for value at https://community.humanetech.com - but needed to more deeply understand.
The notion of #FSDL in its double meaning of #FreeSoftware development lifecycle, and #Fediverse solution delivery lifecycle rose from there, but also the need for a new adoption model.
