search

sublinks / sublinks-api

MIT License
69 stars 18 forks source link

Adopt a "server covenant" #267

Open lionirdeadman opened 3 months ago

lionirdeadman commented 3 months ago

I think that it would be important to establish clear guidelines for the servers we want to show on a future "join sublinks" list to avoid conflicts where people would not agree on what should be shown there - better to clear that up early on.

I think the Mastodon Server Covenant (https://joinmastodon.org/covenant) would be a good basis to base these guidelines on. I, however, don't agree with the part contained in it about "Incompatible policies". I also think the submission process would be better as a pull request to allow for more collaborative evaluations in the open.

Pdzly commented 3 months ago

Yeah a PR would be more open and others could discuss too.

I would be ok with the incompatible policies, because like said its annoying to create a new email just to work around site policy. I would not deny on the second point, but have like a marker "Closed Federation".

But this can be done by having like tags e.g. Open Closed Private ( In special cases ) ....

gaviscapes commented 3 months ago

I think it's a good idea. As well as having instances being displayed on the instance by approval. There is a menu on Pixelfed to request to be reviewed that we could look at for inspiration to consider implementing such a system instead of having to open a PR or make a new email.

lionirdeadman commented 3 months ago

I would not deny on the second point, but have like a marker "Closed Federation".

I think better tags would be no tag, "using allowlist" or "not federated". The reasoning is that using a blocklist is IMO very vital to having any type of effective moderation and should be expected behaviour for any instance deserving of being shown on the list, really. Allowlists are not necessarily "closed", they're just the opposite of blocklists. I may have misunderstood what "private" is though.

As well as having instances being displayed on the instance by approval. There is a menu on Pixelfed to request to be reviewed that we could look at for inspiration to consider implementing such a system instead of having to open a PR or make a new email.

I think allowing for non-pr mechanisms would be interesting for non-tech people. I'm not sure how best to handle that.

As for in-instance showing, I think this is an entirely separate issue.