use systems that federate

[PaulFree14]

Hi there, I just got notified by a comment, so I thought I'd just bring this up again. First I'd like to thank you all for the affort you but into for maintaining free software for the foodsaving/foodsharing community.

I might sometime sound as being someone wanting/forcing to go 'only pure', and yet I can't argue that this wouldn't be true to some extend.

I just wanting to point out that my strategy is and was also alway ancord in how to gain the most support and attention for the theme foodwaste/foodsharing and it's plattform.

Meaning also to understand the different interests and don't alinate them from each other.

Much from the scene of coders who understand themselfs at the same time as activists are working/hoping for a plattform development cutting of the wallet garden systematic.

foodsharing was able to grow very popular in germany. Still the development of the plattform was missing some engagment from other devs.

Meanwhile there are ton's of devs. being interested in simliar fields but building up wallet gardens. Much of the potential is getting lost through being self-centerd. As a negative side effect among many others, does bring a wallet garden the concept of concurence with. Every person using a different service simliar to yours, is a loss for your popularity, a loss of possible engagment from that person, and a loss of attraction to the plattform (fb is attractive because of the many ppl using it), ....

Big company have solved the underlying coordination issue through clear hieracyies and departments. For good reasons grassroot folks don't want much of that, but missing often effective organisation.

Just take the foodsaving app. In first I think it's great to just start with something which is hopefull usefull, while still the main focus is to learn and experiment. I've come across a couple of tools which are basicly just tryn to do the same as foodsaving. Meaning we have many ppl working seperate on the same, while the effort they bring into isn't effecting the others. It's hudge loss of resources. like 20 ppl could work on 15 plattform doing mainly all the same, but 20 ppl could also work on 3 plattforms doing mainly the same.

I can't tell what the current collaboration process looks like, so I'm sorry if my asumotion being wrong.

The secound point I'd like to bring in, before coming to an proposal serving both, is that in this moment their isn't any larger grassroot movment being connected and organized through federated plattform. Just kicking something off to get organized as a larger group through federated plattforms can create couple of nice headlines. Similiar happend to mastodon just a couple of month ago while now counting someting around 800.000 user and growing. With that there is the possiblity of attract many ppl from the tech area, which is - well, usefull when developing plattforms.

The fact that foodsharing has already a hudge community and that the development of fed. software for them and other will kick off headlines does have a great potential to great hudge movment fighting to open locked up reasources to share them. Mastodon has already much of that vibe, but isn't really build to facilitate. Regular ppl ask for help, often even 'hey, I can't pay my rent, who can help out?' And ppl help. Same as they help to maintain and facilitate the plattform as it's understood as a common. Have never seen that so regular happening then in any other place. With this I wanted to highlight that there is not only growing quantity but also great quality.

My proposal: Build some amaizing! There is no reason why to not to. And there is no reason foodsaving wouldn't, if development continues, become the multi-sharing plattform. We might don't have the resources yet to do so, or the understanding how to, but that only means we need to learn how to get it.

I've been thinking some time what it would need for such a plattform as basic.

• nomadic identity
• plugin system
• able to read/write most federated standarts

I've been mentioning this already, but I see hubzilla/zot as the underlying plattform which could serve to build foodsaving and then a multisharing plattform. It has a nomadic identity incl. clear and detailed definition of who can read/write what. Is plugin ready. And able to read/write most federadand standarts.

It's been trusted and running safe since a couple years. I asume even that the work to develop a well functioning tool for foodsaving requires less code when writen for hubzilla, while having at the same time much more functionality.

I know we had that conversation once again. And you've been sayn that to start with it's to much effort and time doing it federated.
I asume that this asumption is based on not lack of reseaech into federated systems such as hubzilla. Also missing that a lot effort is being lost through building wallet gardens, mutlible time simliar once without that the effort being made has a positive efect on the other plattforms.

If I haven't alinate you with that post I'd be keen to know your thoughts.

for questions about hubzilla you can join either the support channel (there you get the better answers as main dev. hanging out there) or matrix.

[PaulFree14]

here the hubzilla support channel: https://gravizot.de/channel/support?f=&jsdisabled=0

and here the hubzilla matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#hubzilla:matrix.org

[PaulFree14]

general informations about hubzilla: https://project.hubzilla.org/page/hubzilla/hubzilla-project

(documentation is currently being rewriten)

[PaulFree14]

and just for proof of concept showing a plugin example.

It's a map I and everyone I allow can set and describe their location. Once a person is x kilometer away from me, I'll get a notification.

https://hub.vilarejo.pro.br/rendezvous/rurhertoutra/

[tiltec]

Past issue is here: https://github.com/yunity/foodsaving-backend/issues/121

Comparing the conclusions back then to today:

• we want to replace foodsharing.de -> Is not true anymore, we want to offer similar services to users worldwide
• we need groups that collectively handle stores and pick-ups. All federated systems I know (diaspora) don't have a collective ownership model -> I had a brief look a hubzilla and couldn't see any mention of groups

It seems that most federated systems are built for p2p sharing, so they are well suited to replace some features of facebook, twitter. This example goes in the same direction: https://hub.vilarejo.pro.br/rendezvous/rurhertoutra/

So I'm still interested in looking into examples, but so far I didn't see anything that could fit the foodsaving tool without increasing complexity a lot.

I've come across a couple of tools which are basicly just tryn to do the same as foodsaving.

That would be interesting to me, can you forward some of them to me? Last week we got to know https://github.com/boulder-food-rescue/food-rescue-robot which has a roughly similar purpose, but different setup. They have admins and volunteer roles. They have routes and explicitly mention a focus on charity (donating all the food to poor people instead of eating it themselves). Collaboration would be nice, but I don't see any synergies yet.

[nicksellen]

@PaulFree14 I don't find suggestions that we rebuild the entire platform in a completely different way very useful or respectful

[PaulFree14]

...aah typing on mobile, everthing got deleted so need to do it again.

Thanks for your fast respond.

''we want to replace foodsharing.de -> Is not true anymore, we want to offer similar services to users worldwide''

I know that. But that doesn't mean foodsharing.de folks wouldn't switch if there is greater service. Connecting them transnational incl. to have a social network, cloud, wiki, chat, forum....and more.

''we need groups that collectively handle stores and pick-ups. All federated systems I know (diaspora) don't have a collective ownership model -> I had a brief look a hubzilla and couldn't see any mention of groups''

Shure. That's why I keep advicing to make a research about hubzilla. And I as I know it's even not the only one comming with group function, but the only comming with nomadic identity, which then makes all others uninteresting.

Just to let you know, it happens many times that I share an idea and ppl asume it's not working or false, while being biased and then even don't borther to make a own research or ask.

[PaulFree14]

@nicksellen thanks for sharing your feelings. So I do mine: I neither find it nice to read a comment sayn my idea is disrespectfull just because it's questionizing the current development. Beside that I have shared this idea with a couple of ppl within yunity before foodsaving was even a project. I find it disrespectful that as it seems neither one of you have checked anything of what I've been sayn. I asume that is cause I don't speak 'dev lang'. It feels for me not very respectfull to make asumptions about the quality of an idea based on the status of the person proposing the idea.

[nicksellen]

@PaulFree14 I've read everything you've ever written to the best of my ability/knowledge

[PaulFree14]

I spoke about. I've didn't really wrote it down. (also can't remember if I had a conversation with you about that, but thought I at least mentioned it. I could be wrong. Still meaning that the idea was never really discussed deper incl. research within the dev. circle. I see it still as something very important and wanted to bring the topic for that reason up again. If it's important or not ppl might have different opinions on. Just because something was left out before doesn't mean a project needs to continue leaving the idea out)

[nicksellen]

@PaulFree14 I've discussed centralized vs federated vs decentralized models many times more than I ever wanted to, regardless of that - it's not cool telling people that are actually working on something they should do it in a totally different way, especially if you're not actually able to help with that work

[PaulFree14]

ok. I leave the discussion.

idea : 0 bully :1

[nicksellen]

@PaulFree14 that is an abuse of the word bully. I'm criticizing your approach to promoting federated structures. I'm not criticizing you or your ideas - I love federated and decentralized structures. I'm using a terse manner as I've heard the same arguments and approaches repeatedly from you.

[PaulFree14]

''that is an abuse of the word bully. I'm criticizing your approach to promoting federated structures.

I'm using a terse manner as I've heard the same arguments and approaches repeatedly from you.''

I'm not a native speaker, and have seen the word bully being used in simliar cases. But anyway is that part of the behavior I was tryn to criticise. You could have also just asked me what I mean with bully.

• I'm fine with how it is. And I also think this discussion shoulnd't take place here, as it is mainly metatalk

[tiltec]

Paul, I guess that you know of a lot of projects and who is working on them. On the other hand, you are usually not involved very much (for different reasons, I guess).

I think the best type of collaboration with you would be the "connecting people & spreading ideas" type of way. For example, if you have heard of someone or something that might be relevant to foodsaving worldwide or the foodsaving tool, please write a mail to fstool@yunity.org and one of us will reply. In the same manner, you could also open an issue on GitHub, but expect that issues can be seen as a "task to do" by developers and they might react more intensely.

Back to the topic: before implementing chat, I considered using Matrix for our platform, but discovered that (a) authentication will be quite difficult and (b) they don't support custom messages type, which we need for implementing a wall/feed type of thing. Read more in here, also a detailed consideration of XMPP and Discourse some comments further down: https://github.com/yunity/foodsaving-frontend/issues/520#issuecomment-310909812

I would be interested to hear more about Hubzilla groups and how they could be used to manage collective ownership of data. Don't expect that we will implement it in the foodsaving tool in the near future, the priorities are set differently and we are still not more devs than one year ago.

You could also contact Butze and Lauritz from the FLAKE, as they want to find devs to implement a sharing platform at the CCC at the end of this year.

[PaulFree14]

have the e-mail now safed. (if I've get once motivated enough I might make a organized bookmark list of all projects with potential collaboration with foodsaving. ...but might be not in very near future)

github I'm anyway not very comfortable using it as it's not opensource.

Will read #502 somewhen later, thx for sharing. With matrix, there have been talks that this will be implemented in hubzilla. In all I would say it's just a question of time. xmpp shouldn't be to difficult to implement incl. having the identity bound to some other kind of foodsaving identity. (but I guess that wasn't what you've ment.)

About hubzilla I'm not an expert (guess I anyway don't need to mention). In all the best I think is getting to know what you need to know and then have a chat with some experts.

Just a short note from myside:

the date is not collectivly bound. All the data is bound to individual accounts. It's called nomadic identity. You can travel with this data to any other server, and not just take the date but all your connection and authorisation keys with you.

The server running your instance is called hub. It's like a home with a spesific adress. If you want to leave the place to live somewhere else your friends stay friends, and they can reach you through your old or/and your new adress, as you wish. The connections you make you can group them into different rights, just as you wish.

But how to do then something as a group?

Every account can create as many channels as they wish and have it accsesable from the accounts they wish. You can also define who else has accsess to read/write/admin. This you could describe as a group. This makes it possible that even while all the admin stuff is facilitated through the group, the date is still bound to your nomadic identity.

Did that answerd your question? Also didn't expected that anything of that would be implemented in foodsaving.world. I saw it more like an idea for a seperate project. ...but I wanted to reach out to you and others being active working on foodsaving.word and have a public chat...so I did that here :)

To the point you're still not enough devs. I feel that this is also bound to the aproach you take. And many devs. doing the same, and working on similiar with not enough dev. involved. ;-)

been in contact with flake folks. They make great work when it comes to community building, raising awarness and such. But not really the once I would choose for kicking of plattform development, as they by themself are not really engaged in any form in that direction.

..and in all I'm with some personal struggles and propably anyway won't do anything in that direction this year.

And as (I might wrote that even once in bad writen wiki article) a strategy I anyway would first start to analyse the potentials, making research on who's doing what in simliar fields, observe and understand the dynamics in the different fields, get to know the talents of the different ppl, transfer information pieces from one project to the other until they come clother together, make each other understand the potentials if working togehter based on the research you've did before, design with those who have high interest patterns which can be used to fascilitate the workflow.....then make your first bigger call out. I have seen many devs not being very aware of the work of others which should affect what they do. That's why I don't like the aproach of jumping into work before expertise of the experts.

When it's about federated plattforms (not multi-sharing) I see mike as one of the leading experts.

The socialWG with it's ActivityPup where even Tim Berner-Lee is to some extend involved I count as an example of not being very aware of other devs. doing simliar. Or at least missing engagement with each other. Group around Tim Berner-Lee is developing a set of standarts based on W3C. That's an aproach missing what else is out there and taking the W3C in the middle of the universe. W3C as seen with OSatus isn't mainly about quality of code (can be), but a popular brand. (OStatus has major privacy issues as it also never was designed for that, and the code itself, refering to those refactoring it and running it under postActive, a complitly mess. It was since a couple of years also not maintained by W3C ppl)

Now this standart might even die as some want to switch to ActicityPub mainly through the push of cwebber (socialWG) and eugen (mastodon). Wanting to say with that, that if ppl aren't aware what others work on, think and have knowledge about, a lot work is wasted. ActivityPup as still some identification issues simliar to OStatus, while yes improving some other. Solid, yet another set of standarts with Tim as lead, using more or less pure W3C. While still just being vaporware they had no attend to really engage with folks behind zot (standart of hubzilla). While hubzilla is basicly even what they try to build.

Why am I sayn all this? Just to give some examples on how important it is to collaborate with others, go through advice processes and such...otherwise, even those being seen from the most as experts wasting resources through ignoring each other.

[nicksellen]

@PaulFree14 please don't use our github issues as a place for general discussion