“Hypothetically, a federated GitLab could fill all the requirements, however, federated services cannot be offline-first and don’t offer sovereignty over user's identity. Users are tied to specific instances and thus subject to some of the same drawbacks as centralized services.” ( https://docs.radicle.xyz/docs/understanding-radicle/why-radicle )
I disagree. Having instances with a particular group of peers, codes and culture is the strong point of federation. The #Radicle design shows the flaws of purist free software and purist p2p ideology with an impoverished idea of social interactions. Operating Tor or Bittorrent is the most asocial activity I can imagine. I truly hope #ForgeFed ( https://talk.feneas.org/c/forgefed/10 ) will succeed at some point.
I also don't see why federation means it cannot be offline. There is no reason a federated git client couldn't cache the status and activities. There is a bit too mucher prepper aesthetics here.
@sciss Side thought: I was pondering the idea of federation overly supporting echo chambers. It does surely support groups of like-mindeds or groups of experts. And it does support federal discussion of groups at home at their own instance - in a lot of cases. I guess echo chambers in such groups are just a side effect, and not necessarily always one, that is soo bad.
Personally i enjoy being on a big instance with a multitude of people and their multitude of seeing things.
@jayrope it's not so much about the sizes of instances. GitHub works really well as a social platform, the main problem here is its almost-monopoly and corporate business model. What I wanted to say is, this kind of libertarian underwriting - there are no entities, just peer atoms - appears to me quitly strongly ingrained in these types of projects ; almost all the distributed, decentralised source hosting initiatives somehow come out of a stallman'ish reading. I would start from the opposite site. It's great if your protocol has a solution to broadcasting merge requests across nodes, but the whole point of connecting to each other is to build communities, to discover things, etc. GitHub is way more than a platform for coders, it allows many people to collaborate that would not describe themselves as coders; you can work on texts and collections there, you can come as a software user that doesn't write code, etc. If you don't start your design with this, if you cannot even create a code of conduct for your project and think of the question of moderation, it will never take off.
@jayrope Yes, but it needs an effort to interconnect GitLab, Pagure, Launchpad, Gogs/Gitea, SourceHut. Otherwise not much is gained from switching platforms.
@sciss That is to be wished for! Question is, what's the benefit for Github itself, when their business model is in the way? How can it be sold to Github as sthg. they should support?
It's also a much more involved endeavour than forking GNU Social and creating Mastodon. git is a much more complex existing infrastructure, there are other concerns such as security that apply less in the case of a micro blogging service.
I have just discovered the project, so can't say for sure, but it appears to me that it seriously lacks human resources invested and engaged in the project. The project is scattered across twelve-and-a-half different websites and forums. And there are too many stakeholders each with their own goals and governances. They would need to find both an institution like Framasoft, a public funding, and at least one hosting platform that would collaborate on creating an MVP. It's not like you have one developer and they can grasp and extend the codebase of a project like Gitea.
This is a brand new server run by the main developers of the project as a spin-off of mastodon.social It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!