🇳🇱
I find it a bit concerning how mastodon talks about their software and new features as if they exist in a vaccum. They talk about implementing a QT feature and forcing people to opt-in or not... Meanwhile the rest of the fediverse has had the QT feature since forever, including modified mastodon instances. We already have a standard, no you cant force opt-in.. .either implement it or dont, you cant force other software to block a feature just because you on your server didnt "opt-in". Its literally equivelant to a link to the original post...
@freemo I am happy that qoto has QT implemented but if Mastodon implements it too we should definitely go with the Mastodon wide version. Ours only works properly in web interface and only for qoto users. It's not available in apps and if I understand it correctly people on other instances only see our QTs as links, is that right btw? adding a link is not at all the same as full QT. just posting a link is adding friction to the process. You may think that friction is minor but it is not. People don't click on links. They want visual info about the quoted toot, not a link.
@herid QOTO was the first non-misskey instance to get it. But it was already an established standard under misskey and now other servers that implemented it also follow their standard.
@Romaq @freemo @herid That is perfectly fine. It's up to the people actually running the project to see about how they want to run them.
There are quite a few opensource projects run in a similar manner (BDFLs/what not): SQLite, ENSIME, Vivaldi. Vivaldi has a different model where they make the sources available, but no open trail/audit of daily development activity. ENSIME is similar with an invite-only model of development. That is, people who can actively contribute are invited to participate on their development repo.
https://qoto.org/@freemo/109573444749701967
The part that is not so fine, in my "non-production/ non-developer/ just a user" position? As @freemo states in his post, treating one's software as if it exists in a vacuum to force an issue that has already been adopted outside of Mastodon development's control rather widely. It is as if the developer said, "This thing you guys wanted and implemented on your own? This thing you have developed as a standard in the community? Well *I* set the standards, and YOU ALL can live with what *I* decided as the way the community should do it!"
It is not *reasonable* to foster a community around a project, encourage them to develop your project and grow, and then when they have, tell that same community to piss off because you are going to do it this OTHER way, and they damned well better like it! Well of *course* the developer can do that. The developer may just find himself shut off by that same community developing his project without him.
Everything has a cost. Those costs are not always measured in money.
@freemo established standard? so there are many instances that use it, not just us? if so then yes it would certainly be preferable if Mastodon adopts it instead of creating a new one.