/0 Governance

240 readers

15 users here now

A community for discussion and democratic decision making in the Divisions by zero.

Anyone with voting rights can open a governance thread and initiate a vote or a discussion. There's no special keywords you must be aware of before you open a thread, but there are some. here's the governance thread manual.

Answers

founded 5 months ago

MODERATORS

div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

143

Discussion - Potential piefed instance in the future? (infosec.pub)

submitted 3 days ago by fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello m@teys,

I've been waiting for this a long time (half a year), personally. After seeing the surge in piefed instances, i.e. blahaj, .ca, .zip, quokk.au, and .world creating their own instances, and clients guaranteeing future piefed support, we've been thinking about potentially opening an instance in the future. Not a guarantee, just an idea. This isn't a voting thread, just a discussion. Later on we'll actually vote on this.

Do note that this thread will not guarantee an instance; we are discussing a hypothetical. Suggestions? Ideas? Criticisms? make your voice heard.

Have a good week!

pie picture comes from here

governance type: sense check

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, Rimu listened to the feedback, both on https://piefed.social/post/956572?sort=new#post_replies and Matrix

[–] socsa@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Seems like maybe that was premature considering a lot of people are still surprised by this. I'm on here pretty much daily and hadn't heard of it. Also it's incredibly shitty to stovepipe that conversation on matrix. It's the same shit reddit mods do with discord.

[–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The discussion was open on both Matrix and Piefed, as shows the link above

[–] socsa@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Seeking stakeholder involvement is the product of publicity and outreach, not just technically something being in public. I do a lot of community organizing and local government stuff and "the meeting was public" doesn't cut it if you don't advertise it. In fact, people will rightfully get pissed off if you say that.

I'm not going to spend a bunch of time worrying about this either way, but a bunch of devs and admins talking about it on matrix isn't exactly community outreach. Rimu puts universal messages for other things, so it seems like that could have drawn some more widespread input.

And again I know this isn't the place to debate this, but a lot of users in that thread seem to want to preserve private voting. It's mostly admins and devs punting on the issue.

[–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Seeking stakeholder involvement is the product of publicity and outreach, not just technically something being in public. I do a lot of community organizing and local government stuff and “the meeting was public” doesn’t cut it if you don’t advertise it. In fact, people will rightfully get pissed off if you say that.

This was posted in the Piefed_meta community, where else was it supposed to be posted?

Also, the new version of voting allows private local vote, and public federated vote. Obfuscating the federated votes was trivial to overcome