• Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “So you’re building a Fediverse server? Here’s a bunch of things to think about and to decide.” It’s a short 6 pages text, rather quick to read.

    EDIT: by “building a Fediverse server” I don’t mean the software, I mean the instance itself. You know: hosting it, administrating it, moderating it, creating a community, etc. The main points that the text talks about are governance, vibes, documentation, mod team, decision making, community involvement, money, legal stuff, contact with other server operators.

    • souperk@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Dopamine received, initiating hyperfocus protocol!

      As a rule of thumb, we’ve observed that a team of 5 trained moderators appears to provide ample coverage and redundancy for servers of about 1,000 active users

      That’s a fascinating bit of information. I would expect 5 moderators to provide coverage for more users. I am wondering how they came up with that statistic (will update the comment if I find an answer).

      Remember that offliine/IRL community management experience can be just as important as online experience

      Interesting idea, wondering what’s the IRL presence of the fediverse…

      If you’re building toward participatory or democratic governance, consider establishing a proposal and voting system (some teams we spoke with use Loomio, but multiple options exist) for major policy decisions.

      That’s soooo important, I love when communities create polls to decide on policy changes.

      Avoid promoting brand-new members unless you already have a pre-existing relationship with them

      I have followed some discussion on multi-level hierarchies on the fediverse, wondering if there are any instance implementing that…

      Consider charging for accounts or offering paid memberships.

      Hell no!

      We hope there will be more resources available in the future, particularly tooling around legal compliance. This is one of the big infrastructural gaps we point out in our main report

      That’s a big issue, I would be interested in hosting an instance available to other people, but I don’t want to end up in jail and I lack the resources to make sure that won’t happen…

      That was an interesting read, it seems there is an in-depth analysis of the report here.

    • SorteKaninA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s more like for instance admins rather than the developers of the server software itself. At least that’s how I understand it.

      • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        By “building a Fediverse server” I meant exactly that, not software developers. (Thanks for pointing it out though - it means that my explanation was ambiguous. I’ll edit the above accordingly.)

        • SorteKaninA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Right, as a software developer myself, I equated “build” as “building” the software, not “building” the community or administration around an instance 😅

          • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Ah, that explains it.

            It’s kind of funny because when I used the word “building” the first thing that came to my mind was the server as a house - like, you’re building a digital home for a bunch of people. So the idea was in the opposite direction as yours. Just language things.

            • SorteKaninA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I think also the use of the word “server” instead of “instance”, but it’s quite a small semantic nitpick.