I am forever grateful to him for building & popularizing Mastodon, but I don't think @Gargron should be working on features at all right now.
Instead, he and the Mastodon non-profit (and a whole bunch of others) should be figuring out governance for collectively making decisions about Mastodon. Features in the Fediverse shouldn't be up to one guy, or even one company.
That's the whole point of the Fediverse. We do this together, or not at all.
@blaine @Gargron Totally agree the big players and brands (Eugen's nonprofit) should be focused on inclusive governance. Perhaps that's what he's trying to do by talking about it in public. Grassroots governance. Dogfooding. Modeling civil discourse.
Perhaps it's not all or nothing.
We do this together AND separately, federatedly.
We can each try our hands at forking the code and running modified instances.
@hobs @blaine @Gargron Yeah, different people have different skills, and maybe @Gargron's skill is in building those features, not setting up organizations.
Me, I'd say Features in #Fediverse shouldn't be up to a single governance either.
And it's not. We're all free to build whatever we want to engage over #ActivityPub, even forking #Mastodon code if we really want to with our own features. Or using other platforms.
In short, on the whole there's a good chance Gargron SHOULD be working on features as we're already in a place of collective governance of Fediverse.
