Re: Can the SocialWeb save Google Groups? (or, at least do what it should do?)

I was responding to Jacky's question about Discourse! Apologies if I 
crossed the streams by mentioning the test suite/artefacts discussion 
happening in another thread, what I meant was that we should remember to 
share any new artefacts that may arise from the other thread with the 
Discourse implementers when they come back for discussion in this one.

No opinion on heirarchical UseNet versus email groups.  I run a 
multithread kernel under all this chaos and it will not be tamed.

xoxb

On 3/25/2023 2:44 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 22:07, Bumblefudge von CASA 
> <virtualofficehours@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     https://meta.discourse.org/t/federation-support-for-discourse/90921/101
>
>     Seems it's already in progress-- I'm hoping we can make some
>     progress on our tangle of test artefacts in time to be useful for
>     their internal testing.
>
> @Bumblefudge - Your off topic here  ? - Re: Can the SocialWeb save 
> Google Groups? (or, at least do what it should do?)
>
> Sort of shows why we need a Hierarchical UseNet NNTP messaging system 
> over normal email group for discssions.
>
> A.
>
>     On 3/10/2023 4:43 PM, Jacky Alcine wrote:
>>     I'm interested in seeing _existing_ forum software like Discourse being either modded or forked to support ActivityPub. They have an existing model of sustainability (in part of those who help found that project's existing capital) and a large enough audience that would connect thousands of Discourse instances into the Fediverse.
>>
>>     It's a Ruby on Rails stack (IIRC), similar to Mastodon so there's opportunity for some level of reusability/overlap.
>>
>>     On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 16:32 -0500, Bob Wyman wrote:
>>>     As discussed on [/.](https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/03/08/172217/google-groups-has-been-left-to-die),  yesterday, Andrew Helwer asked on [his blog](https://ahelwer.ca/post/2023-03-08-google-groups/): *"Google Groups has been left to die: Where should the formal methods community move?**"* He suggests that Google Groups is in decline and that *"It’s clear we ran afoul of the old lesson: don’t build communities for long-lasting FOSS projects on proprietary infrastructure you don’t control."*
>>>     *
>>>     *
>>>     It seems to me that the kind of discussion groups that started on USENET and then eventually migrated over to Google Groups are, in fact, "social" and thus might be usefully included within the scope of this group. (Even though NNTP is an IETF RFC, not a W3C standard.) In fact, it appears that one could construct a useful analog to these legacy systems using ActivityStreams and ActivityPub -- but not the way they are implemented in Mastodon or most other existing AS/AP systems. It is also quite clear that using a Federated approach to maintain this kind of discussion might protect them from the catastrophic loss that arises when a proprietary system decides to change its priorities.
>>>
>>>     Is a future for USENET/Google Groups-like social interactions appropriately discussed here? Can or should the SocialWeb provide a new, more persistent, home for Helwer's Format Methods Community?
>>>
>>>     What do you think?
>>>
>>>     bob wyman
>>>
>     -- 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     @bumblefudge in a few places, including https://chainagnostic.org
>
>
>
> -- 
> Aaron Gray
>
> Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language 
> Researcher, Information Theorist, and Computer Scientist.
>
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@bumblefudge in a few places, including https://chainagnostic.org