Archived
15
23
Fork
You've already forked meta
6

Join or create an organization #3

Closed
opened 2022年11月06日 11:11:22 +01:00 by Ghost · 8 comments

The fork is run by a non-profit democratic organization dedicated to Free Software. Either an existing one or a new one created for this purpose.

The fork is run by a non-profit democratic organization dedicated to Free Software. Either an existing one or a new one created for this purpose.
Ghost added this to the Launch milestone 2022年11月06日 11:11:22 +01:00

Drafts archived here for the record.

Drafts archived here for the record. * [Option C version 2](https://pad.gusted.xyz/k8nkuaG0SzqakJw88z06WQ) and [the associated implementation details](https://pad.gusted.xyz/GhL4qlWoRzKR3NCNKpMKZw) drafted by loic as a shorter version of Option C (2 November) * [Option C](https://pad.gusted.xyz/-3mVA9c_RFWhKSEdtZ7f-A) drafted by loic as a merge of Option A & Option B-3 (1 November) * [Option B](https://pad.gusted.xyz/Kv0OClc9RV6GPfOBYKwmvQ#) drafted by otto (31 October) * [Option A](https://pad.gusted.xyz/arsOQaNMTPGiGuLdWLJKJQ#) drafted by loic & reviewed by gusted (31 October) * [Hard fork](https://pad.gusted.xyz/2t4bPovaQr6kZo9WGNUdlw#) drafted by loic for the most part, before the second blog post from Gitea Ltd was published (29 October)
* [Proposal for a Gitea soft fork hosted and used by Codeberg](https://pad.gusted.xyz/pU-UuidJRgmWKrAWawK8mQ) authored by loic, gusted, otto reviewed by supporters of the Gitea Open Letter (3 November) * [Implementation details](https://pad.gusted.xyz/GhL4qlWoRzKR3NCNKpMKZw)

While discussing the meaning of "hosting" in the proposal made to Codeberg, it seems worthwhile to clarify by sending the following message to the private Codeberg e.V. discussion:

I'd like to clarify that "hosting" also means that Codeberg will be trusted to own the fork domains and trademark. They are the primary reason why the fork has happenned and they should be held by a non-profit with a stellar reputation.

Update: the message was sent as a followup today.

While [discussing the meaning of "hosting"](https://matrix.to/#/!qjPHwFPdxhpLkXMkyP:matrix.org/$eLbEiNcEXjjpkL9av33lPQTl87jzinVM3Vx4gSSwiKI?via=matrix.org&via=exozy.me&via=tchncs.de) in the proposal made to Codeberg, it seems worthwhile to clarify by sending the following message to the private Codeberg e.V. discussion: > I'd like to clarify that "hosting" also means that Codeberg will be trusted to own the fork domains and trademark. They are the primary reason why the fork has happenned and they should be held by a non-profit with a stellar reputation. Update: the message was sent as a followup today.

Internal discussions are ongoing and there is a good chance the proposal will be accepted.

Internal discussions are ongoing and there is a good chance the proposal will be accepted.

@fnetX is everything moving along as you expect?

@fnetX is everything moving along as you expect?

@fnetX it is my understanding that internal discussions are about to be concluded and the proposal will be accepted. It would be helpful to know the decision is final and we can move forward.

Of course there is the matter of how exactly the proposal will be implemented, but these are details that can be sorted out afterwards.

What do you think?

@fnetX it is my understanding that internal discussions are about to be concluded and the proposal will be accepted. It would be helpful to know the decision is final and we can move forward. Of course there is the matter of how exactly the proposal will be implemented, but these are details that can be sorted out afterwards. What do you think?

As a member of Codeberg with access to the internal discussions I can attest that the conclusion is that Codeberg e.V. accepts the proposal, copied here for the record. Forgejo domains and trademarks will be transfered to Codeberg e.V.


Proposal for a Gitea soft fork hosted and used by Codeberg

Codeberg has concerns regarding Gitea Ltd, but wants to continue collaboration

  • Gitea Ltd is now in control of the Gitea project
  • The trust that Codeberg built with the Gitea Community over the years does not exist with Gitea Ltd
  • Codeberg needs to provide assurances to its users that
    • no proprietary features are creeping in the codebase
    • it remains privacy first (gravatar disabled by default, trackers disabled by default, etc.)
  • Codeberg needs to:
    • closely monitor Gitea changes
    • be prepared to maintain changes in the Codebase that Gitea Ltd would refuse because they go against its commercial interest
  • There is not enough workforce or funding for paid staff to work on a solution

Some Gitea contributors do not accept the Gitea Ltd takeover

  • There are talks about creating a Gitea fork that would compete with Gitea
  • At least two Gitea contributors (@Gusted 1 and @dachary 1, 2, 3) are committed to work on it
  • They are not motivated by competition. They are looking for transparency, democracy and Free Software
  • More people with a wide range of skillset are also involved with various levels of commitment

Codeberg can host and use a soft-fork

  • It does not require many human resources from Codeberg itself
  • It will allow Codeberg to
    • Verify the Gitea codebase
    • Publish a Gitea distribution with guarantees Gitea Ltd does not provide
    • Include features and tools helpful to large scale Gitea deployments

The soft-fork used by Codeberg will be attractive to others

  • The Gitea distribution by Codeberg will be appealing to other organizations and individuals who
    • Want a Free Software guarantee
    • Need privacy first and expect trackers to be disabled by default instead of active by default
    • Need the optional large scale features
  • There needs to be paid staff to ensure long term sustainability
  • The current Codeberg funding cannot provide that
  • But soft-fork release published by Codeberg can be used by many and this creates funding opportunities
    • it helps donation campaigns
    • it can be funded by grants (NLnet, OTF, etc.)
    • it attracts paid staff delegated to Codeberg by other organizations

The following message was sent to Codeberg e.V. members:

I'd like to clarify that "hosting" also means that Codeberg will be trusted to own the fork domains and trademark. They are the primary reason why the fork has happenned and they should be held by a non-profit with a stellar reputation.

As a member of Codeberg with access to the internal discussions I can attest that the conclusion is that Codeberg e.V. accepts the proposal, copied here for the record. Forgejo domains and trademarks will be transfered to Codeberg e.V. --- # Proposal for a Gitea soft fork hosted and used by Codeberg ## Codeberg has concerns regarding Gitea Ltd, but wants to continue collaboration * Gitea Ltd [is now in control](https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/) of the Gitea project * The trust that Codeberg built with the Gitea Community over the years does not exist with Gitea Ltd * Codeberg needs to provide assurances to its users that * no proprietary features are creeping in the codebase * it remains privacy first (gravatar disabled by default, trackers disabled by default, etc.) * Codeberg needs to: * closely monitor Gitea changes * be prepared to maintain changes in the Codebase that Gitea Ltd would refuse because they go against its commercial interest * There is not enough workforce or funding for paid staff to work on a solution ## Some Gitea contributors do not accept the Gitea Ltd takeover * There are talks about creating a Gitea fork that would compete with Gitea * At least two Gitea contributors (@Gusted [1](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Agusted+is%3Aclosed) and @dachary [1](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Asinguliere+is%3Aclosed), [2](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Arealaravinth+is%3Aclosed), [3](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Asilentcodeg+is%3Aclosed)) are committed to work on it * They are not motivated by competition. They are looking for transparency, democracy and Free Software * More people with a wide range of skillset are also involved with various levels of commitment ## Codeberg can host and use a soft-fork * It does not require many human resources from Codeberg itself * It will allow Codeberg to * Verify the Gitea codebase * Publish a Gitea distribution with guarantees Gitea Ltd does not provide * Include features and tools helpful to large scale Gitea deployments ## The soft-fork used by Codeberg will be attractive to others * The Gitea distribution by Codeberg will be appealing to other organizations and individuals who * Want a Free Software guarantee * Need privacy first and expect trackers to be disabled by default instead of active by default * Need the optional large scale features ## A popular soft-fork by Codeberg makes it sustainable * There needs to be paid staff to ensure long term sustainability * The current Codeberg funding cannot provide that * But soft-fork release published by Codeberg can be used by many and this creates funding opportunities * it helps donation campaigns * it can be funded by grants (NLnet, OTF, etc.) * it attracts paid staff delegated to Codeberg by other organizations --- The following message was sent to Codeberg e.V. members: > I'd like to clarify that "hosting" also means that Codeberg will be trusted to own the fork domains and trademark. They are the primary reason why the fork has happenned and they should be held by a non-profit with a stellar reputation.

Posted the following thank you note in the internal Codeberg e.V. thread.

As a member of the forgejo project (the name was picked today and the domain is being transfered to Codeberg e.V.), I'm grateful and motivated to work on it under the umbrella of Codeberg e.V. 💙

I'm commited to report on Forgejo activities in a way that will help Codeberg members get a quick overview of what happened before the General assembly every year.

Thank you!

Posted the following thank you note in the internal Codeberg e.V. thread. > As a member of the [forgejo project](https://codeberg.org/Forgejo) (the name was picked today and the domain is being transfered to Codeberg e.V.), I'm grateful and motivated to work on it under the umbrella of Codeberg e.V. 💙 > > I'm [commited to report on Forgejo activities](https://codeberg.org/Forgejo/meta/issues/36) in a way that will help Codeberg members get a quick overview of what happened before the General assembly every year. > > Thank you!
Commenting is not possible because the repository is archived.
No Branch/Tag specified
readme
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels
[Decision] Building proposal(s)
We're in a decision-making process, buiding one or more proposals to address the shared aim based on the criteria
[Decision] Gathering criteria
We're in a decision-making process, gathering criteria, considerations and needs
[Decision] Integrating concerns
We're in a decision-making process, working with a proposal, trying to integrate concerns and create modifications/support such that the proposal works for everyone
Accessibility
Relates to Accessibility (a11y) of product, project and process.
Agreement proposal
Forgejo agreement proposal, following a discussion
Communication
Relates to all channels, social media, website, blog posts.
Election
Process of appointing a person into a role or team (if choosing people just for a specific one-time task, use the Entrustment label)
Entrustment
Process of choosing/approving specific people to do a critical/high-impact one-time task (if choosing people for an ongoing role/team, use the Election label)
Governance
Relates to processes, procedures and decision-making.
Meeting
An upcoming team meeting
User research - Accessibility
Requires input about accessibility features, likely involves user testing.
User research - Blocked
Do not pick as-is! We are happy if you can help, but please coordinate with ongoing redesign in this area.
User research - Community
Community features, such as discovering other people's work or otherwise feeling welcome on a Forgejo instance.
User research - Config (instance)
Instance-wide configuration, authentication and other admin-only needs.
User research - Errors
How to deal with errors in the application and write helpful error messages.
User research - Filters
How filter and search is being worked with.
User research - Future backlog
The issue might be inspiring for future design work.
User research - Git workflow
AGit, fork-based and new Git workflow, PR creation etc
User research - Labels
Active research about Labels
User research - Moderation
Moderation Featuers for Admins are undergoing active User Research
User research - Needs input
Use this label to let the User Research team know their input is requested.
User research - Notifications/Dashboard
Research on how users should know what to do next.
User research - Rendering
Text rendering, markup languages etc
User research - Repo creation
Active research about the New Repo dialog.
User research - Repo units
The repo sections, disabling them and the "Add more" button.
User research - Security
User research - Settings (in-app)
How to structure in-app settings in the future?
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Reference
forgejo/meta#3
Reference in a new issue
forgejo/meta
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?