silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social

Updating FEP-5219: Groups and permissions: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/pulls/908

I added two flags that indicate whether a group is private, semi-private or public: canFollow and canParticipate. These flags are similar to ones used in interactionPolicy pattern but I think interaction policies don't scale well.

There is now a thread on SocialHub if you prefer it for FEP discussions: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-5219-groups-and-permissions/8855

#fep_5219

Summary card of an issue titled "FEP-5219: `canFollow` and `canParticipate`" in repository fediverse/fepCodeberg.orgFEP-5219: `canFollow` and `canParticipate`- Clarified how affiliations should be used. - Defined `none` affiliation. - Defined `canFollow` and `canParticipate` properties. - Fixed example of Add activity. - Added compatibility with `manuallyApprovesFollowers` and `postingRestrictedToMods` properties.
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social

Replying to @⁨silverpill@mitra.social⁩

@silverpill Kind of. The effort from Feb/Mar sadly fizzled out, but the T&S Task Force recently called for a Community Group process with the same goal (adaption of the GTS spec with hopefully minimal changes) and I'm now hoping to contribute my interim artifacts there and maybe help finish the work.

github.com/swicg/activitypub-t

Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social

Replying to @⁨silverpill@mitra.social⁩

@silverpill I'm not a big fan of W3C's use of GitHub, but other than that the difference in venue feels relatively skin-deep to me. If this approach results in a cohesive document, I would see no issue with also posting it as a FEP draft while it goes through the CG/WG feedback loop. That would likely help adoption by implementers.

en