Regarding our proposed DAPSI goals and the DAPSI schedule (page 6): isn’t this switch a riskier way to achieve these goals? It looks like the switch implies more unknowns.
This greater risk worries me since a failure to achieve our goals would impact the following grant proposals. It looks less risky to follow the initial plan, then to switch and then to do a rewrite. This would use more resources and cost more, but considering the overall goal - the fedeproxy project being dissolved in the forges - it looks like a small setback.
I think that the new proposed plan is a good way to dissolve Fedeproxy into Gitea (and to implement a fedeproxy service outside of Gitea), but I would rather the acceleration of the Gitea federation development was not a burden for the initial roadmap. Should not this switch be performed once the initial plan has been implemented?
On another note, federation was implemented for pagure (forgefed - forgefriends) five months ago. This development was funded by an NLNet grant and its result is an extension not hosted within the Pagure repository. Since this project already exists, could not fedeproxy be “extracted” from this project (instead of being dissolved into it)? I mean, is there any way we could reuse it?