Depending on my skills, available time, and whether the projects' CoCs are acceptable, I would also like to contribute to both #GNU_Social and #Friendica. I know both projects can use a little additional momentum.
I'm not sure whether the #Soapbox front-end can be used with #GNU_Social. #Pleroma started out as a front-end for #GS, as #Qvitter started falling behind. So even though #PleromaFE currently doesn't support GS, it may be possible to go back to when support was removed and re-add it.
And honestly, I'm a bit gleeful that this time it is #mastodon-run instances that crash under the load and not, like in the past, the tiny #GNUsocial instances. This time we're away from the sea spray, and some megalomaniacal "developers" of Mastodon face the brunt.
I actually think that the overwhelming majority of blocking should be done by individuals curating their own timelines. I am sensitive to the effect on the Fediverse as a whole, especially as we've already been through this.
Even the original #bifurcation (when the largest instance at the time, Identica, severed communication with #StatusNet / #GNUsocial & #OStatus and switched to the #Pump.io protocol and software) and the subsequent #ActivityPub - #OStatus split have caused untold breakage. I've seen AP-side devs, admins, users patting themselves on the back while commiserating about brokenness that is built into the protocol itself or at least its common implementations.
I have also seen people telling other people to create "alts" on various instances, so that their posts can reach all of their intended contacts. Not for resilience against instance shutdowns or separating by posts and recipients by topics and interests (which is what groups and Diaspora style Aspects / GPlus style Circles are for), but because #blockwars prevents posts and members from one instance to be seen on certain others.
For the record, I think that instance governance is something that Mastodon should include in its instances.social instance-picker, along with instances' topical foci. People should have a way to see what they're agreeing to (and what the alternatives are) before the sign up.
In other words, it isn't my way or the highway so much as it is making it possible to know what one is getting into. I am certain that there are (or were) instances with democratically chosen rules. I also believe that we're not doing the people who use an instance any favor by not making it possible for them to contribute to the financing and administration of the instance. If you're paying all the costs and doing all the work to maintain and moderate the instance, it is difficult to let an election institute a policy that you disagree with. (I've started to really disagree with the idea of individuals hosting public instances wholly out of their own financial and time resources. Besides the "truck factor", it is much easier to keep an instance going if everything was already handled by a team and at least partly member supported.)
On the other hand, if the instance encourages those in its membership who can do so to participate in keeping it going, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect the admin team to carry out the decisions voted by the membership. I do realize that not everyone can contribute funds, nor can everyone do the technical labor ... but as @simsa04 will remember, things like writing documentation, contributing in discussions about improving the software, designing and implementing themes, and even marketing-type tasks such as creating a logo and a favicon or promoting the instance to people outside the #Fediverse are beneficial.
I am not planning to launch the first open registration public instance until every !fnetworks #GNU_Social instance is running version 2.0+, so #Federati Networks may miss this next wave of #Twitter refugees.
The chaotic situation at home has meant that I’ve delayed the planned upgrades again.
Some days I'm glad my instance of #GNUsocial doesn't support #ActivityPub and isolates me from the idiocy on Mastodon of which I already get plenty from #Birdsite.
Often on #gnusocial I wish that there were a means by which to prevent some repeats by people I subscribe to. They feel annoying or unwelcome. Only lately did I realise that quarreling with somebody's repeats means I don't embrace the person as a whole but only in the facet I enjoy. Which on the one hand is stupid as I don't learn something new that doesn't already confirm my biases; and which on the other hand would spare me from more carefully choosing the folks I subscribe to. So not being able to block repeats (across instances) seems to me, at least in gnusocial, a rather good thing.
La cuenta desde la que escribo esto es del 25 de mayo de 2016. Creo recordar que el servidor de #GNUSocial es incluso anterior, pero que por algún error se volvió a montar. Quizá gente que lleva tiempo, como @puppetmaster o @yosu puedan confirmar.
The time may come for !gnusocial, #Friendica, #Mastodon, and other Fediverse software to move their #IRC channels to a different network. Hopefully, we can discuss and co-ordinate that move.
@vegos I agree. To most organizations, their primary concern is reach. So they congregate on big #corpocentric #socnets, even when the central corporation running things is actively hostile to their point of view.
Then they're butthurt when their accounts are shadowbanned.
Years ago, I tried to persuade some local Black churches and ethic-focused organizations to join !GNUsocial and #Diaspora, but was unsuccessful. I think they all joined #Facebook, where their posts are hidden by the algorithms.