Interesting, it seems that every project implements groups in wildly different ways. Both bookwyrm and pleroma are going for private groups primarily, with public groups as an afterthought.
Yes, it seems to be the only way that fediverse evolves… organically, haphazardly maybe. I don’t know whether that is good or bad, but I find it a bit disheartening to see that it so hard to get a bit of broader collaboration off the ground. The prior discussion on SocialHub on Standardizing ActivityPub Groups (which was a continuation of a much older discussion) has sorta stalled again. Though still the occasional reply seeps in…
Hopefully this is implemented like https://github.com/bookwyrm-social/bookwyrm/issues/1548 using the Group Actor type of AP, in order to be compatibile, otherwise there’s little point for it.
Interesting, it seems that every project implements groups in wildly different ways. Both bookwyrm and pleroma are going for private groups primarily, with public groups as an afterthought.
Yes, it seems to be the only way that fediverse evolves… organically, haphazardly maybe. I don’t know whether that is good or bad, but I find it a bit disheartening to see that it so hard to get a bit of broader collaboration off the ground. The prior discussion on SocialHub on Standardizing ActivityPub Groups (which was a continuation of a much older discussion) has sorta stalled again. Though still the occasional reply seeps in…