Looks like this decision is decided already but I figured I'd put in my input. Given this instance has an open registration policy, nothing is stopping someone from another instance to create an alternative just for voting on this instance. This individual might align and contribute positively to the fediverse and have really great ideas and contributions to discussions here. However because they use their alt account here on sh.itjust.works only for voting, their vote might get dismissed due to poor account reputation (another issue that I believe was already brought up in another post). The fediverse is meant to be a decentralized community and by forcing people to need to join this community to vote promotes centralization which I believe is the opposite of what the fediverse is trying to accomplish. I guess for now I'll hold off on casting my vote until the community determines what criteria should be considered when counting a vote.
The Agora
In the spirit of the Ancient Greek Agora, we invite you to join our vibrant community - a contemporary meeting place for the exchange of ideas, inspired by the practices of old. Just as the Agora served as the heart of public life in Ancient Athens, our platform is designed to be the epicenter of meaningful discussion and thought-provoking dialogue.
Here, you are encouraged to speak your mind, share your insights, and engage in stimulating discussions. This is your opportunity to shape and influence our collective journey, just like the free citizens of Athens who gathered at the Agora to make significant decisions that impacted their society.
You're not alone in your quest for knowledge and understanding. In this community, you'll find support from like-minded individuals who, like you, are eager to explore new perspectives, challenge their preconceptions, and grow intellectually.
Remember, every voice matters and your contribution can make a difference. We believe that through open dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to discovery, we can foster a community that embodies the democratic spirit of the Agora in our modern world.
Community guidelines
New posts should begin with one of the following:
- [Question]
- [Discussion]
- [Poll]
Only moderators may create a [Vote] post.
Voting History & Results
I get what you mean, but if this is the forum for discussing how this instance is run, then I think at the very least, the opinions and views of those with accounts based on this instance should weigh more than those from elsewhere. They have their own instances to take an active role in, and if they find the direct-democracy aspect of sh.itjust.works, they should have their "main" account here. There's been a long-requested feature to allow account instance migration a la Mastodon style, making such a weighting or restriction more equitable.
Nay. I feel this suggestion is based in the old centralized platform mentality. That isn't to say it is wrong, but it seems based in a premise that does not apply to a federated platform. If you start thinking about how a federated platform actually works, I could join this community...and others on this instance...from an account on another server. Why would we treat someone as second class citizens for using the Fediverse in the way it was intended?
For those thinking "they can just make an account here if they want to vote", you are right. They could. But that also goes back to centralist mentality. We want to be able to interact with people and communities regardless of which instance houses the data object that is my account. From that perspective, I feel voting should be more inclusive than just those who have a user object stored on this instance.
My question back to you would be, what problem are you trying to solve by this limitation? I'm sure there are any number of hurdles we will need to address with open voting, but we have to identify those problems first.
I don't want people who haven't agreed to follow the same set of rules deciding what the rules are that I must follow.
It's like how much of the world decided it didn't enjoy colonial rule so much.
Where are people getting the idea that this community is for discussing administration of this instance?
Nay
We have open registration anyway, so there wouldn't be much friction if an outsider wanted to create an account to vote. We're large enough that we can rely on our numbers, we just need to make sure everyone knows about the Agora.
After creating an account and agreeing to follow the rules they aren't an outsider anymore.
Nay.
Servers are an implementation detail that shouldn't matter to users in the first place.
Nay
Like TheDude said, it goes against the very nature of decentralization.
Aye
Of course their input should always be welcomed, but the final decision should be ours.
Aye
Aye
Nay because anyone can make an account here who has an account elsewhere. In practice it makes absolutely no difference unless we somehow restrict account creation here which I also say Nay to doing so.
I think it matters. It's not about practical difficulty - it's a mental barrier
If you make an account here, you're a member. Doesn't matter if you have 4 other accounts on other servers, the minute you sign up this becomes one of your servers
It's a very low bar, and a very open community. But I think you should have to actually join it, so that you feel invested in it
Nay
People from different instances visit communities on this one and must follow its rules, so they should have a say on them.
Moreover, having to create a separate account just to be able to vote here is impractical, but I doubt it will stop those who are in bad faith.
Nay.
I changed my vote because I have been using the federated functionality and it's awesome.
Nay (Even though I'm on sh.itjust.works)
There is no point to have a Federated community not allowing federated users
Lemmy is not made to create an account on every instances either, don't create a myriad of accounts on every instances, this defies the point why Federation principle was made, to dispatch the content and the load
Aye, it is better to start with being more restrictive; especially with an influx of new accounts. If in practice it is not achieving the desired goal of hindering bad actors we can try something else. that being said the only way to see the actual benefit is to try. Perhaps try it for a month with a vote at the end to make the rule permanent?
Nay, I thought half the point was that "the instance you join doesn't matter much." I'd generally like more cohesion, not walled communities that you need 5 different accounts for.
Edit: I want to add to this. Nowhere in the community description here does it say it's meant for sh.itjust.works community discussion/voting. I think there's value in a community closed to sh.itjust.works that ONLY discusses sh.itjust.works relevant topics/polls. But this isn't the community for it.
I'm still an Aye.
I already have 4 accounts on different instances, which is useful while Beehaw does their defederation thing. Part of this decentralized federation is that each instance gets to make it's own rules on how it operates. Why should members of one instance get to make all the rules for another one?
If someone wants to make an account and participate in the growth of this particular instance then they're already vested in this community.
This is exactly how I feel. Maybe I need to re-read theDude's OP about the direction of the instance but I thought this was a place to discuss the Administration of this instance, so why would people from other instances get the same say and input? You don't vote for other country's elections...
If you read the community description, nowhere does it say this is a place to discuss admin of this instance. That's my issue. If we want a place for that, I totally agree there's value in that. But either the description needs to be completely changed or it needs to be somewhere else.
A simple line added to the top of the description that this is meant to be "the agora (of sh.itjust.works)" would fix that. The description made sense to me when I read it and implied that already but that's probably because I came here immediately after reading the original post announcing this place and it's purpose.
Nay - I currently don't even have an account here, so... take that as you find authentic for your instance.
Why would it matter to you if the people who do have an account here voted to add a new rule then?
Your own instance has the set of rules you need to follow. Do you want to let us decide what those will be?
🤔 how does it work when/if I would want to participate in a community on your instance?
Post to it, comment on things...
Philosophically, I'm thinking about 'owning' a forum vs 'participating' - how to not have federation become fragmentation.
For me, it is perfectly OK to have different rules for local and federated accounts in a community, but maybe some communities will want to organize this in a consensus that goes beyond the 'owning' instance.
(Maybe I'm also - still - misunderstanding how multiple instances and federation works. This is also an invitation to think about these things / make them clearer (to me, and in general)).
The community is at a different level than instances or federation. For example, the rules a community agrees on aren't typically related to your instance or handled by the instance moderation team / admin.
Every instance will have some kind of terms of use that you must follow to keep an account on that instance.
A local community specifically for the bureaucracy of the local instance is also a special case.
In general, posting / replying in communities should be encouraged no matter which instance the community or your account was created on.
However, if you are breaking either your instance's rules or causing problems for users on another instance you can expect to be reported and likely have some moderation actions taken against your account. Basically, just having an external account isn't a license to behave badly.
Aye.
Service guarantees citizenship.
Ugh. That was satire, not a playbook.
Aye
I know I'm too late to really weigh in on this, but this community is still vastly smaller than others and could get overwhelmed by votes that reflect what's best for lemmy.world and not sh.itjust.works. (I know it's an over-used example, but I'm okay with other instances restricting CCP criticism as long as this one allows it)
My understanding of the federated vs centralized argument is that we actually want different servers to be run independently and then bring different things to Lemmy as a whole. If we had the same rules across all of the instances, then we might as well be one big centralized instance again