This is a chance for any users, admins, or developers to ask anything they’d like to myself, @[email protected] , SleeplessOne , or @[email protected] about Lemmy, its future, and wider issues about the social media landscape today.

NLNet Funding

First of all some good news: We are currently applying for new funding from NLnet and have reached the second round. If it gets approved then @[email protected] and SleeplessOne will work on the paid milestones, while @dessalines and @nutomic will keep being funded by direct user donations. This will increase the number of paid Lemmy developers to four and allow for faster development.

You can see a preliminary draft for the milestones. This can give you a general idea what the development priorities will be over the next year or so. However the exact details will almost certainly change until the application process is finalized.

Development Update

@ismailkarsli added a community statistic for number of local subscribers.

@jmcharter added a view for denied Registration Applications.

@dullbananas made various improvements to database code, like batching insertions for better performance, SQL comments and support for backwards pagination.

@SleeplessOne1917 made a change that besides admins also allows community moderators to see who voted on posts. Additionally he made improvements to the 2FA modal and made it more obvious when a community is locked.

@nutomic completed the implementation of local only communities, which don’t federate and can only be seen by authenticated users. Additionally he finished the image proxy feature, which user IPs being exposed to external servers via embedded images. Admin purges of content are now federated. He also made a change which reduces the problem of instances being marked as dead.

@dessalines has been adding moderation abilities to Jerboa, including bans, locks, removes, featured posts, and vote viewing.

In other news there will soon be a security audit of the Lemmy federation code, thanks to Radically Open Security and NLnet.

Support development

@dessalines and @nutomic are working full-time on Lemmy to integrate community contributions, fix bugs, optimize performance and much more. This work is funded exclusively through donations.

If you like using Lemmy, and want to make sure that we will always be available to work full time building it, consider donating to support its development. Recurring donations are ideal because they allow for long-term planning. But also one-time donations of any amount help us.

  • spaduf@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    There’s also FEP-d36d which is a standard for group-to-group following. In Lemmy terms, a community could subscribe to another community.

    • nutomic@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think FEP-2100 is a much more promising approach because it makes communities more resilient in case an instance goes down.

    • Blaze@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      In Lemmy terms, a community could subscribe to another community.

      In this case, why not merge?

      • spaduf@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I think the major advantage with this model is that it gives those local communities a little more flavor while allowing the same functionality as the large communities (probably a good place to apply scaled sort). It also allows for a sort of curated multi-reddit functionality. Most importantly, it seems flexible and generalizable enough to allow for building advanced group features on all platforms, while still advancing the goal of inter-operability. A more straightforward multi-community functionality or the OP solution would have a lot of unanswered questions regarding federation. I’d be curious to see how kbin does it and whether that federates well. All that said, I think a lot of communities probably should be looking at negotiating a merge.

        • Blaze@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I always like there are basically two types of topics (because after all, communities are focused on a topic)

          • either you have enough of a userbase to have your own flavour on the topic, for instance all the gaming communities that exist on different instances, which all co-exist next to each other, and it wouldn’t really make sense to merge them all
          • or you don’t have enough people, and in this case you should just agree on one instance where to host the community and be done with it

          I know there is the political aspect to take into account, but for me that comes back to the first point: if enough people of the same political side want to talk about something between them, that’s good. If not, they might have to put that aside and go for the second option.

          All that said, I think a lot of communities probably should be looking at negotiating a merge.

          Strong agree