Loomio

Changes to the diaspora protocol

Jason RobinsonJason Robinson Sat 19 Sep 2015 7:14PMPublicSeen by 247

Some changes have recently been made to the diaspora protocol while extracting it outside the main application.

While this is great work and changes do need to be made, in this case changes were made without raising awareness of those changes to all the stakeholders in the protocol.

Please, the protocol is more than diaspora. Even if it is "YOLO code", coming from one developer, that doesn't mean it doesn't have to be supported, maintained and more importantly, not broken for ALL stakeholders.

Change is fine, change without announcement is not fine. I'm guessing this was just an oversight, not realising that asking the other server software stacks to verify and test would be a good idea.

To me, and probably the person writing the actual code, this is clear. But I just had a discussion with some other core developers who don't think consulting stakeholders is necessary.

So, to raise the point and to take an official decision, we need to vote on the matter.

Jason Robinson

Changes to the protocol must be pre-communicated with ALL stakeholders

proposal by Jason Robinson Closed Sun 20 Sep 2015 8:02AM

Outcome
by Jason Robinson Tue 25 Apr 2017 5:21AM

The diaspora core developers do not want to communicate changes.

With all stakeholders, here we mean:
* Diaspora core developers
* Friendica core developers
* RedMatrix/Hubzilla core developers

Pre-communicated means:
* Deliver a plan of changes being done to stakeholders when those are planned or latest when work begins on them (cannot work without having a plan)
* Do not merge in changes before listening to all the stakeholders and noting their concerns with implementation and timetable

Results

ResultsOptionVotes% of votes cast% of eligible voters
Agree53613Jason RobinsonMichael VogelJerónimo Luis Barraco MármolDeleted accountjeroenpraat
Abstain42910Pirate PraveenBalasankar CajKent Shikama
Disagree53613Jonne HaßDennis SchubertCodeHeroSuperTux88Karthikeyan A K
Block000 
Undecided2665Sean TilleyFlorian StaudacherSleepyDaddySoftwareHans FaseBilly O'ConnorDevendra MahraJeremy HuffmanFlaburganLennart PrelleDave YinglingRasmus FuhseDavid Morleyelf PavlikElmPetar PetrovićTaylor McLeodAdam LakeDaniel SmithWaithamaiMrFrety

14 of 40 votes cast (35% participation)

Jason Robinson

Jason Robinson
Agree
Sat 19 Sep 2015 7:19PM

To me personally, if Diaspora ignores other implementors of the Diaspora protocol - the project is dead for me

Jerónimo Luis Barraco Mármol

Jerónimo Luis Barraco Mármol
Agree
Sat 19 Sep 2015 7:48PM

I agree. it lives up to the diaspora philosophy.

Jonne Haß

Jonne Haß
Disagree
Sat 19 Sep 2015 8:01PM

If this passes I can no longer justify investing time into improving the current federation implementation.

CodeHero

CodeHero
Disagree
Sat 19 Sep 2015 9:08PM

It's not good to prioritize compatibility with third party servers over improving Diaspora. The server should be stable and mostly bug free before thinking about official support for third parties.

CodeHero

CodeHero
Disagree
Sun 20 Sep 2015 1:01AM

It's not good to prioritize compatibility with third party servers over improving Diaspora. The server should be stable and mostly bug free before we think about official support for third parties.

Karthikeyan A K

Karthikeyan A K
Disagree
Sun 20 Sep 2015 1:46AM

Common there is this developer freedom, if a developer listens to every one nothing will move.

Michael Vogel

Michael Vogel
Agree
Sun 20 Sep 2015 1:53AM

The only thing I'm asking for is to have a little bit of preparation time to do the changes on the Friendica side. If you remove some feature, just tell it before you are doing it.

SuperTux88

SuperTux88
Disagree
Sun 20 Sep 2015 2:19AM

See my comment.

Load More