I’m confused (you probably already knew that).

[smallcircles@social.coop]

@eyeinthesky

I am a former facilitator of SocialHub and part of the FEP team.

The whole idea of the FEP process is that it is accessible to all fedizens, and anyone can take the initiative and write, submit, and guide their own FEP document towards a FINAL status.

It is recommended practice to introduce a new FEP to the SocialHub developer forum for discussion, which the FEP forum category federates out. The forum thus also serves as an archive of past discussions around ActivityPub / fediverse evolution.

However, it is not *required* to discuss on SocialHub should you not want to do so for some reason. I'd say it has the disadvantage that it fragments discussion and it becomes harder to parse the 'body' of FEP's created over time. People would have to use the tracking issue accompanying a FEP to figure out where to discuss things.

But the freedom to choose is the important part. It helps lower the barrier to write FEP's.

[julian@activitypub.space]

@eyeinthesky@mastodon.social my FEPs now host their discussion on ActivityPub.Space

Its entirely up to you where you want to do it. Some others use GitHub issues exclusively.

I built ActivityPub.Space because I wanted a place on the Fediverse to discuss AP development. A place that natively integrated with it, and a place that connects both the threadiverse and the wider fediverse.

[julian@activitypub.space]

> @eyeinthesky@mastodon.social said in I’m confused (you probably already knew that).:
>
> Is activitypub.space going to replace SocialHub?

As for this one — while ActivityPub.Space was create in the wake of a possible shutdown of SocialHub, the two are meant to be complementary. They are both listed on ActivityPub.rocks

[eyeinthesky@mastodon.social]

@julian Can you explain more about how they are complementary? (Not challenging the claim, just want to understand.) They seem to have significant overlap in their objectives. It feels a bit like another level of fractal fragmentation of fed dev discussions.

[julian@activitypub.space]

@eyeinthesky@mastodon.social there are complementary in the sense that they both speak ActivityPub and content on both is available on the other (standard federation limitations apply.)

[eyeinthesky@mastodon.social]

@julian I don’t see the discussion about the collection filtering FEP that started a few days ago on SocialHub (although I see a few others), but I understand the goal. Thanks for the explanation.

Do I need to create an account to search activitypub.space?

[silverpill@mitra.social]

@smallcircles @eyeinthesky I like SocialHub and hope that it will remain online. But I haven't heard anything from its current admin for several months

[julian@activitypub.space]

@eyeinthesky@mastodon.social I manually pulled that one in now:

https://activitypub.space/topic/9b6e63c7-09d8-46b7-89c2-2e6f9ed918db/fep-34c1-collection-filtering-using-tree-hypermedia-vocabulary

[thisismissem@activitypub.space]

You can definitely have all your FEPs point to discussions here instead of socialhub. As prior examples of this go, iirc all of Evan P's FEPs point to his codeberg repo issue tracker, which is arguably more annoying than a federated forum.

@julian it could be interesting to add a like ?explain=true parameter to threads that can show like a modal dialog / banner explaining this post is federated and how you can interact with it from your existing fediverse account. Though I have noted sometimes mastodon fails to resolve NodeBB posts/thread URLs to AP representations and I don't know why nor how to fix it

[julian@activitypub.space]

@thisismissem would be good to know which URLs fail to resolve. It could be that NodeBB returned a 503 and that would lead to a failure in resolution. Just let me know next time it happens 😊

As for an intro banner, that's a neat idea. @baris@community.nodebb.org actually added something at the bottom of a topic, but it does make sense to add some AP specific text in the too.