Community building and channel feedback

[pilou]

@aschrijver

Just like some things I described above from a general perspective and as more of an observer until now, your and @dachary’s misunderstanding on switch of programming language, highlight the need for changes to the community organization

As a change, I suggest to simply follow the current community organization instead of changing the whole organization.

@aschrijver

In any case a DAPSI renewal should have the R&D components to be eligible and these should extend / build upon those that were described in the first submission.

@aschrijver

For adding a ‘professionalisation’ of the community organization I see two options:

1. Organization component
2. Research component ‘piggybacking’

Note that the fedeproxy project is currently set in a non-commercial context and as an experiment limited in time.

Should the professionalization of the community help to sustain the project itself?

In terms of funding:

• would the DAPSI grant be sufficient to sustain the first option?
• would the second option be able to bring some funds (a production ready service could be offered as a paid service) ?

@aschrijver

Another stated goal seems to go against option 2 (paraphrased):

• “FedeProxy will dissolve itself after forges have adopted its work. There’ll be no longer a need for it to exist”
  I wonder if this is really the case

Fedeproxy isn’t a lasting project but a DAPSI project isn’t a lifelong project. Isn’t the fedeproxy disappearing a very long term goal? And will it be adopted by proprietary forges?