October 2025 ForumWG Meeting
Forums and Threaded Discussions Task Force
1
Posts
1
Posters
29
Views
-
October 2025 ForumWG Meeting
Monthly meetings are held on the first Thursday of each month, at 13h00 to 14h00 Eastern Time (currently 17h00 to 18h00 UTC). You can find them listed in the SocialCG Calendar. The next meeting will be held (today) on 2 October 2025.
Meeting link: https://meet.jit.si/ap-forum-wg
Discussions will continue re:
- FEP 7888/f228 adoption
- ongoing FEP drafts
- Context (topic/thread) deletion and moving between audiences (communities/categories)
-
undefined nodebb@fosstodon.org shared this topic on
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@trwnh@mastodon.social sure here are the minutes!
I was the only member in attendance 😁 The meeting was adjourned with zero action items
-
@julian sorry for oversleeping today -- any minutes?
-
Monthly meetings are held on the first Thursday of each month, at 13h00 to 14h00 Eastern Time (currently 18h00 to 19h00 UTC). You can find them listed in the SocialCG Calendar. The next meeting will be held (today) on 5 February 2026.
Meeting link: https://meet.jit.si/ap-forum-wg
There is no set agenda for this month's meeting.
@julian will discuss a new FEP-f15d: Context Relocation and Removal and integration efforts with the Lemmy and Piefed folk. Updates re: FEP-4f05: Soft Deletion and WordPress and Mastodon's efforts to implement
-
@silverpill@mitra.social said in Minutes from 4 December 2025 WG Meeting:
> It's not possible to sign a dynamic object, because some of its properties are constantly changing (items, totalItems and others). This means collections need to be always server-managed. Therefore, clients shouldn't be allowed to directly create, update or delete them.Mmm, signing doesn't guarantee data correctness, it only guarantees that the data presented is correct as of sending, per the sender's point of view.
Just like how signing a Create(Note) only guarantees that the note's data is what it is at the time of the Create, a Move(Context) only guarantees the validity of the context's data at the time of the Move.
That said, this FEP doesn't have you including the entire object in, just the URI, so this is moot........ no?
-
Sorry it took so long to respond to this —
Re: assumption of a context belonging to one audience
> Where, in Lemmy? Even if some implementations don't support cross-posting I don't see a reason to block it at the protocol level.This FEP doesn't block cross-posting at the protocol level. Move just explicitly states that a context was Removed from one and Added to another. You could achieve this just fine with Remove followed by Add, but this just reduces it down to a single activity and eliminates any side-effects (e.g. a Remove without corresponding Add might mean content is purged from the db)
So in theory, a context can belong to multiple audiences, and it can be moved from one to another, or removed from one.
-
Collections are dynamic objects because they can be paginated and filtered. It's not possible to sign a dynamic object, because some of its properties are constantly changing (items, totalItems and others). This means collections need to be always server-managed. Therefore, clients shouldn't be allowed to directly create, update or delete them.
I think the proposed Move activity is an obfuscated Update because it changes the collection directly.
-
>the assumption is already there
Where, in Lemmy? Even if some implementations don't support cross-posting I don't see a reason to block it at the protocol level.
And Update is simpler, that's one activity instead of two (Move and Remove).
-
silverpill@mitra.social said in Minutes from 4 December 2025 WG Meeting:
> 2. Treating collections (dynamic views) as static objects that can be moved, deleted etc is not compatible with client-side signing.You mentioned this before, but I am not sure what you are referring to. Do you mind elaborating?
