🇳🇱
NOTE: If anyone wants to be added to this list just let me know.
Ok so this seems to be most of the people who publicly stated they had interest in developing the "United Federation of Instances". All of you should have gotten the first draft and opinions were heard and discussed.
Today I will be moving the first draft over to git (either git.qoto.org or gitlab.com). From there I will encourage each of you to provide suggestions as to edits there, and raise discussions in issues. This way we will be public and have an open transparent forum that keeps the changes on record.
While public feedback is being debated on the proposal I will begin a rough draft on the complete by laws (which will try to represent the broader points in the proposal document). That too will be on gitlab and open to discussion
From there as the movement grows we can begin discussing launching it.
I suggest all communication on the fediverse about this use the #UFI hashtag so it is easily searchable.
Since this is a public post I will now share the link to the early draft here, please keep in mind everything here is open for discussion so if anyone doesnt like the current direction, please speak up, we want you to be heard.
https://jeffreyfreeman.me/files/united_federation_of_instances_proposal.pdf
@skanman @floppy @john @stevenclyman @robryk @ejg @dashrandom @Romaq @ichoran @AlanOutback @tsomof @aebrockwell @Ryle @tatzelbrumm @Gaythia @ichoran @realcaseyrollins @stux@mstdn.social @stux@masto.ai @trinsec @khird @darnell @jq #mastoadmin #fediblock
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
- getting the wording of point 1 of the coc absolutely water-tight is critical. it was fine in the previous qoto tos, but when you apply it to a broader scale that a federation of servers is "Hate-based racism, sexism, and other hateful speech,[...]" isn't going to cut it. everything can be hateful speech with enough twisting. ideally it would be something like from hacker ethics: "Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.". then, meritocracy has fallen from grace.
- put down what the expected response time for moderation is. people sleep, have other things to do, etc. you can't always have a moderation in place after an hour.
@skanman @floppy @john @stevenclyman @robryk @ejg @dashrandom @Romaq @ichoran @AlanOutback @tsomof @aebrockwell @Ryle @tatzelbrumm @Gaythia @realcaseyrollins @stux@mstdn.social @stux@masto.ai @trinsec @khird @darnell @jq
@Ryle And I've posted there, hopefully a useful approach. I have seen "Hate speech had a very clear legal definition", but then you have the problem of how one jurisdiction may currently define the term legally vs. another jurisdiction, if they define it at *all*. We could use the UN version, which may be totally disagreeable to people in countries who never signed off on that.
But... hopefully there is a solution that simply does without the specific term "hate speech."
