Reshares

@steffenvanbergerem : what do you think about my previous comment? Does it seem feasible?

@globulle No. This will make the federation much more complex and since there would be an additional step this would also increase the probability of undeliverable messages. Also that extra pod that you choose still knows too much and could also decide to deliver no messages for other pods at all.

All in all I think that the changes you proposed will make the federation too complex and I'd like to see a proposal where only public reshares are allowed to spread a post.

But before creating yet another proposal I think we should wait until we completely moved the federation to a gem. Changing the federation is currently not an option for me and I think you won't be able to find any core team member who is willing to merge federation changes in the d* code itself.

I guess @supertux88 already has some ideas how he could improve the federation protocol after he completely moved it to a separate repository and I guess he is also willing to improve the way reshares are federated.

I'll block this proposal because I think that there are currently no adequate answers for important questions about this proposal and that we need some time to find out what kind of changes would be feasible.

To quote @steffenvanbergerem "When we allow private reshares we have to make sure that also the existence of the reshare stays private." Why? If this is the only issue and would make things overly complicated, just notify the original poster as before. The term 'private' may be misleading here, but this ist not about secret resharing, but limited resharing to certain aspects. Therfore I strongly disagree with your veto, throwing us right back into waiting forever and nothing happening about issues people have been going on about for years. It is never to early to take about changes, no one expects them to be implemented tommorrow or even in the next months.

@es I think notifying the original poster as before would induce some problems regarding privacy, since it gives a public visibility to a private action. I presume somebody who posts to specific aspects only should not let any signed public print.

But I mostly agree with your message since this issue can be solved the other way: not notifying the original author at all, as long as there is no satisfactory solution. Which is basically what happens when you post the url of a public message to specific aspects (something quite frequent I suppose).

Let's separate the federation code from the d* core code before talking about federation protocol changes.

Steffen++

Well, the fact that we are not going to do it right now doesn't mean we can't discuss this, does it ?

Sure we can discuss. But while moving the federation to a gem @supertux88 might have some ideas how to improve the federation and might also have some great ideas about reshares so I think this is not the right time to vote. The current proposal has some flaws and I don't think that there will be an implementation of this proposal which is good enough to merge. Since we won't change the federation right now we could instead share some ideas and open a new proposal as soon as we are able to change the federation.

You are probably right.

Short question. Is it easier to split it into reshare and quote like some script it do? There will be no change into the federation, only into the frontend.

Short question. Is it easier to split it into reshare and quote like some script it do? There will be no change into the federation, only into the frontend.

That could be done. But this look like a dirty patch. better do things right.

No dirty hacking, better make it right in the first place. :)