wip-monthly into main Preview at: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@wip-monthly/2022-12-26-monthly-update/
This monthly report ise neutral and fact based, informative only and written in the third person (not "we" or "our" but "it" and "they").
390fffdbbe
417c99da92
417c99da92
fd6531842c
fd6531842c
86346c6493
I did not check spelling, as I'm bad... but read over it and belive it's good so far with the 2 things I commented on being my only finds.
@ -0,0 +33,4 @@
### Branding
There is no support for theming in Gitea and rebranding is a challenge.
Theming is possible, whitelabeling or branding not... (you can change the colors, but not the name)
I'll reword as "theming is brittle" or something.
@ -0,0 +41,4 @@
### Localization
The Gitea codebase is internationalized in a way that follows the expected standards. But the localization (i.e. the translations in various languages) relies on a proprietary service that has a the translation community locked in. Since Forgejo is committed to exclusively use Free Software dependencies and services, it has to use an alternative.
...that has a the translation community locked in...
I believe that a in has a the is a leftover?
86346c6493
3486b455e2
3486b455e2
85dd5356f1
@forgejo/Admins this is a first draft, please kindly let me know if something is missing or incorrect.
I'd like to emphasize that I'm not much of a writer and this is pretty much the only kind of writing I'm able to work on consistently. See for instance the forgefriends monthly reports from the past two years.
It is not much more than a summary of the past actions and I try to make sure nothing major was overlooked. It deliberately does not use "us" "our" nor does it mention individuals or organizations unless absolutely necessary.
it is not meant to be inspiring, although I sometime get carried away. And when that is the case my writing is at its worst and I'm happy to trim it.
85dd5356f1
d69c040a5a
And a Gitea community member took are of fixing the bug and backporting
"took are of" probaby should be "took care of".
This is really good @dachary.
I've made quite a few suggestions below, but they're all minor gramatical things.
@ -0,0 +9,4 @@
### Bootstrap
After [Gitea Ltd confirmed the takeover of the Gitea project](https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/) on 30 October 2022, a group of people proposed that Codeberg e.V. to become the custodian of a fork of Gitea. It was [accepted 16 November 2022](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/3#issuecomment-688648):
proposed that Codeberg e.V. to become/proposed that Codeberg e.V. should become/Codeberg e.V. to https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#what-is-codeberg-e.v.%3F It was accepted/The proposal was accepted/@ -0,0 +15,4 @@
* Forgejo contributors are self-governed group of people (a "gremium" in the Codeberg e.V. parlance)
* The Codeberg e.V. general assembly reviews if Forgejo is aligned with its mission on a yearly basis, based on the monthly reports Forgejo publishes
The essential conditions for a fork to succeed were met and Forgejo could be bootstraped in a sustainable way:
Forgejo could be bootstraped/Forgejo was able to be bootstraped/ ("could" sounds like it might not have happened yet)@ -0,0 +25,4 @@
### Development and Distribution
From a technical point of view, Forgejo is a [drop in replacement of Gitea](https://forgejo.org/download/): it can be used without any modification by replacing the Gitea binary (or container image).
replacement of Gitea/replacement for Gitea/by replacing/by simply replacing/@ -0,0 +81,4 @@
After Gitea Ltd. published their second blog post and re-affirmed their control over the Gitea project, the decision to fork was made by a group of people far smaller than the Forgejo community is today. And they had a difficult task ahead of them: there is no established receipe to properly fork a project. It can be hard and sever all ties with the original project, which is what happened when LibreOffice and OpenOffice went their separate ways. Or it can be soft and find ways for the two projets that were once united to keep working together. It can be hostile and divide a community. Or it can be friendly and reunite a community shaken by an isolated event. A new organization can be created from scratch. Or the fork can be part of an existing organization.
A number of options were [drafted and discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/3), all in public. Knowing that Gitea community members and even Gitea Ltd. shareholders were browsing those debates probably played a role in leaning towards a soft and friendly fork. And [a proposal was sent to Coeberg members](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/3#issuecomment-688648), kindly asking them to be the custodian of the project. After ten days of debate and consideration, the proposal was accepted and Forgejo started to build on that foundation.
Coeberg/Codeberg/@ -0,0 +83,4 @@
A number of options were [drafted and discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/3), all in public. Knowing that Gitea community members and even Gitea Ltd. shareholders were browsing those debates probably played a role in leaning towards a soft and friendly fork. And [a proposal was sent to Coeberg members](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/3#issuecomment-688648), kindly asking them to be the custodian of the project. After ten days of debate and consideration, the proposal was accepted and Forgejo started to build on that foundation.
It is easy to get enthusiastic when a new cooperation is born. It is extremely rare to see a combination that stands a good chance to last. The Codeberg members entrusted the Forgejo community with a light and strong commitment: report back to the general assembly to reassure all Codeberg members that it keeps going in the right direction. In return the Forgejo community trusts Codeberg e.V. to be the custodian of the most precious assets a project can have: its domains.
the most precious assets/one of the most precious assets/@ -0,0 +87,4 @@
#### The Gitea community
Despite good intentions it was impossible to know for sure that a cooperation would happen between the Forgejo and the community members that stayed with Gitea even after Gitea Ltd. established its control over the project. But it happened a few times and in particular when a [bug was discovered](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/800) in the package registry. Codeberg e.V. runs the largest known instance face scaling problems that are not easily reproducible. It took a few weeks for Forgejo contributors to collect enough evidence and understand the root cause of the problem. And a Gitea community member took are of fixing the bug and backporting it so it could be installed on Codeberg.org.
Codeberg e.V. runs the largest known instance face scaling problems/Codeberg e.V. runs the largest known instance and faces scaling problems/took are of/took care of/@ -0,0 +96,4 @@
Forgejo is set to create a healthy balance that involves:
* A majority of independent volunteers who are in control of Forgejo via a governance that empowers them. They are representative of the general public and ultimately the only one legitimate to represent its interests.
* A minority of people who make a living to implement a roadmap co-created by the Forgejo community.
the only one legitimate to represent/the only ones who legitimately represent/who make a living to implement/who earn a living by implementing/d69c040a5a
915246a85a
And a Gitea community member took are of fixing the bug and backporting
"took are of" probaby should be "took care of".
Good catch, fixed.
There is a chapter missing about the roadmap and the user centric approach. The User Research repository does not have much just yet. But there is significant pressure since new feature issues are created daily in the https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues repository.
A user centric approach and the roadmap that comes out of it is the only way to ensure those issues are put to good use and the time people took writing them down has an influence.
Took another complete read, and IMHO it looks good (though I'm not a native english speaker), content is clear, and nothing major stood out to me.
The only thing I am a bit unclear about are the stories in cooperation, are those (mostly the Codeberg one) by Codeberg, or should we potentially "relabel" the headings to [Our] Cooperation with... or similar, to make it clear, that it's not a quote or report by that community, but a report on how our collaboration with them is going (from our / a neutral position)?
I added a section about the Roadmap which mentions user research and social coding: two answers to solve this complicated puzzle.
https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@wip-monthly/2022-12-26-monthly-update/#user-centric-roadmap
Took another complete read, and IMHO it looks good (though I'm not a native english speaker), content is clear, and nothing major stood out to me.
The only thing I am a bit unclear about are the stories in cooperation, are those (mostly the Codeberg one) by Codeberg, or should we potentially "relabel" the headings to
[Our] Cooperation with...or similar, to make it clear, that it's not a quote or report by that community, but a report on how our collaboration with them is going (from our / a neutral position)?
I also have doubts about these stories. They would benefit from a more neutral tone. They read a little too much like propaganda. Maybe this section is too much and should be trimmed. There are echos of the same elsewhere.
although it is informative, it also reads like propaganda which is not the goal of such a report
I trimmed the cooperation section. Please let me know if you have strong feelings about this. An alternative would be to reword it so that it is more neutral but I'm unsure if it is worth the effort.
e4bc6a8105
13163daca4
a9c65d82d1
0c104fb668
Never mind, I didn't understand the review tool at all.
Just spell-checked. :)
PS: Now I understand the review tool at least a bit more, but find it still rather confusing at times.
@ -0,0 +5,4 @@
excerpt: Forgejo was announced 15 December 2022, here is how it happened.
---
Forgejo was [announced in December 2022](https://forgejo.org/2022-12-15-hello-forgejo/) and this report explains how it happened. It is the creation of a collective of people from diverse backgrounds united towards a common goal: enabling Free Software contributors with Free Software tools. The software forge it provides can be downloaded and used right away and it has a unique non technical feature: the community that drives its roadmap can be trusted to put the interest of the general public first. Forging Free Software is not just about writing code, it is a [social construct](https://coding.social/) that involves everyone in a continuous loop.
"non-technical" instead of "non technical" might be better.
@ -0,0 +7,4 @@
Forgejo was [announced in December 2022](https://forgejo.org/2022-12-15-hello-forgejo/) and this report explains how it happened. It is the creation of a collective of people from diverse backgrounds united towards a common goal: enabling Free Software contributors with Free Software tools. The software forge it provides can be downloaded and used right away and it has a unique non technical feature: the community that drives its roadmap can be trusted to put the interest of the general public first. Forging Free Software is not just about writing code, it is a [social construct](https://coding.social/) that involves everyone in a continuous loop.
This first monthly report is meant to provide a high level update of what happened in Forgejo, for people who want to follow its progress from a distance. Fact checking is made easy with links to the issue trackers or chat rooms where the action happened: everything in Forgejo since its inception has been 100% transparent. Video conferences are also [organized monthly](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/36) for Forgejo community members to ask questions.
"high-level" instead of "high level"
@ -0,0 +14,4 @@
After [Gitea Ltd confirmed the takeover of the Gitea project](https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/#gitea-ltd-confirms-its-takeover-of-the-gitea-project) on 30 October 2022, a group of people proposed that [Codeberg e.V.](https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#what-is-codeberg-e.v.%3F) should become the custodian of a fork of Gitea. The proposal was [accepted 16 November 2022](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/3#issuecomment-688648):
* Codeberg e.V. is in control of the domains and the trademarks (if any)
* Forgejo contributors are self-governed group of people (a "gremium" in the Codeberg e.V. parlance)
"... are a self-governed group ..."
@ -0,0 +17,4 @@
* Forgejo contributors are self-governed group of people (a "gremium" in the Codeberg e.V. parlance)
* The Codeberg e.V. general assembly reviews if Forgejo is aligned with its mission on a yearly basis, based on the monthly reports Forgejo publishes
The essential conditions for a fork to succeed were met and Forgejo was able to be bootstraped in a sustainable way:
Shouldn't it be "bootstrapped" instead of "bootstraped" with just one "p"?
@ -0,0 +19,4 @@
The essential conditions for a fork to succeed were met and Forgejo was able to be bootstraped in a sustainable way:
* A well known and trusted organization agreed to support and use Forgejo
"well-known" instead of "well known".
@ -0,0 +20,4 @@
The essential conditions for a fork to succeed were met and Forgejo was able to be bootstraped in a sustainable way:
* A well known and trusted organization agreed to support and use Forgejo
* A group of people with the right skills and stamina committed to provide a long term effort
"long-term" instead of "long term".
@ -0,0 +27,4 @@
### Development and Distribution
From a technical point of view, Forgejo is a [drop in replacement for Gitea](https://forgejo.org/download/): it can be used without any modification by simply replacing the Gitea binary (or container image).
"drop-in" instead of "drop in".
@ -0,0 +34,4 @@
* binaries for GNU/Linux amd64, arm64 and armv6 (which can also be used on armv7)
* container images for amd64 and arm64, either running as root or rootless
It will include some [Forgejo branding changes](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/CONTRIBUTING/WORKFLOW.md#branding) and default settings to [enhance privacy](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/CONTRIBUTING/WORKFLOW.md#privacy). And more importantly it provides a non technical feature: trust in a sustainable non profit community to further the interest of the general public.
@ -0,0 +42,4 @@
Within a few days dozens of [ideas for improving Forgejo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues?labels=78139) were submitted. They are the raw material from which a roadmap should emerge. It is not for GitHub or GitLab to unilaterally decide how software should be forged and what tools Free Software contributors need. It must be whatever the community collectively decides.
How can Forgejo go from an unsorted pile of ideas to a sensible roadmap? How can Forgejo have dreams that are big enough to inspire contributors and realistic enough to be implemented instead of lingering forever? The route Forgejo takes to solve that equation is a mix combining the [long term vision of Social Coding](https://coding.social/) and a method called "[User Research](https://jdittrich.github.io/userNeedResearchBook/)". The outcome of which should be a roadmap that is driven by the needs of the users, the interest of the general public, rather than what paying customers are most interested in in the short term or whatever is most profitable to shareholders at a given point in time.
wrong quotation marks before and after "User Research"
How do you mean?
I've just seen that it's a rendeing issue: On the preview page " is used befor and after the phrase instead of "/".
@dachary It may be related to this configuration. 🤔
I removed the quotes entirely: they were not really necessary.
@ -0,0 +66,4 @@
The Gitea codebase is internationalized in a way that follows the expected standards. But the localization (i.e. the translations in various languages) relies on a proprietary service that has the translation community locked in. Since Forgejo is committed to exclusively use Free Software dependencies and services, it has to use an alternative.
Fortunately [Weblate](https://weblate.org/) is a quality self-hostable translation platform and an instance [is provided by Codeberg](https://translate.codeberg.org/). Intial work started in a [dedicated branch](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/CONTRIBUTING/WORKFLOW.md#internationalization-https-codeberg-org-forgejo-forgejo-issues-labels-82637), for the technical part.
@ -0,0 +75,4 @@
As a new project Forgejo had to create new communication channels:
* a static website at https://forgejo.org built by a CI pipeline from [a repository](https://codeberg.org/Forgejo/website) for collaborative editing.
* a social account at https://floss.social/@forgejo where content is either published after a consensus is reached from the Forgejo community or signed by the author trusted with an access to the account.
Just "access" instead of "an access".
@vrifox I applied all typo fixes, good catch! Except for the quotes which I'm not sure to understand.
@ -0,0 +79,4 @@
* a [Matrix space](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo:matrix.org) where the main room welcomes Forgejo users to answer any question they may have and development rooms where technical discussions happen between people actively working.
* all other communications happen on the forge itself, in a spirit of dogfooding. For instance, although it may be more convenient to use a forum such as Discourse for informal discussions or a task manager to organize the work, the issue tracker is used instead.
All communication happens in public, transparently, so a newcomer can immediately get up to speed by reading the backlog. A [Code of Conduct](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/code-of-conduct) was adopted [very early on](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/13) and applies to all spaces under the responsibility of the Forgejo community. It is essential to create an inclusive environment where everyone can feel safe and a [Well Being](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/CONTRIBUTING/COC.md) team is here to help if needed.
The inclusive environment is hampered by the lack of accessibility in Codeberg.
I am creating a meta issue to better point out this gap, but in this post I suggest making an explicit mention of accessible channels to enhance participation, and also adding a mention of Codeberg's lack of accessibility as a project-level problem that is being addressed.
Thank you.
@fsologureng your comment on accessibility made me realize that there should be a section about the major challenges for which Forgejo does not currently have a strategy and needs more contributors such as yourself to step in so they can be worked on. There also is the topic of diversity.
The section could be titled "Challenges". Do you see anything else in addition to accessibility and diversity?
@fsologureng your comment on accessibility made me realize that there should be a section about the major challenges for which Forgejo does not currently have a strategy and needs more contributors such as yourself to step in so they can be worked on. There also is the topic of diversity.
The section could be titled "Challenges". Do you see anything else in addition to accessibility and diversity?
@dachary Maybe beginner friendliness. Especially for those, who did not come in contact with git etc. yet.
@vrifox for instance community managers, translators, UX designers, etc. The entire population of people essential to the making of a good Free Software but who will never have a real need to understand tools specifically dedicated to coding. Are they who you have in mind? If so that's an excellent point and I'm sure @circlebuilder would agree. That would then be:
Anything else?
Challenges
- Lower barrier to entry for non-coding contributors
- Accessibility
I have opened a discussion to initiate a conversation about this already present challenge.
@ -0,0 +40,4 @@
### User Centric Roadmap
Within a few days dozens of [ideas for improving Forgejo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues?labels=78139) were submitted. They are the raw material from which a roadmap should emerge. It is not for GitHub or GitLab to unilaterally decide how software should be forged and what tools Free Software contributors need. It must be whatever the community collectively decides.
It is not for GitHub or GitLab to unilaterally decide how software should be forged and what tools Free Software contributors need.
This is a bit unclear. Obviously GH/GL have no say, but you want to express that we do not mindlessly follow their product development and as a laggard try to duplicate what they offer. Forgejo shapes its own path.
Going from this...
Within a few days dozens of ideas for improving Forgejo were submitted. They are the raw material from which a roadmap should emerge. It is not for GitHub or GitLab to unilaterally decide how software should be forged and what tools Free Software contributors need. It must be whatever the community collectively decides.
Might rewrite to this..
Already within a few days dozens of ideas for improving Forgejo were submitted. They express the needs and preferences of Free Software contributors with regards to how they forge their software. This raw material is input to our roadmap and will lead Forgejo on a path that is unique and different than what corporate forges like Github and Gitlab have to offer. Forgejo will place the community firmly in control of project direction.
@ -0,0 +42,4 @@
Within a few days dozens of [ideas for improving Forgejo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues?labels=78139) were submitted. They are the raw material from which a roadmap should emerge. It is not for GitHub or GitLab to unilaterally decide how software should be forged and what tools Free Software contributors need. It must be whatever the community collectively decides.
How can Forgejo go from an unsorted pile of ideas to a sensible roadmap? How can Forgejo have dreams that are big enough to inspire contributors and realistic enough to be implemented instead of lingering forever? The route Forgejo takes to solve that equation is a mix combining the [long-term vision of Social Coding](https://coding.social/) and a method called [User Research](https://jdittrich.github.io/userNeedResearchBook/). The outcome of which should be a roadmap that is driven by the needs of the users, the interest of the general public, rather than what paying customers are most interested in in the short term or whatever is most profitable to shareholders at a given point in time.
Suggesting to go from this..
How can Forgejo go from an unsorted pile of ideas to a sensible roadmap? How can Forgejo have dreams that are big enough to inspire contributors and realistic enough to be implemented instead of lingering forever? The route Forgejo takes to solve that equation is a mix combining the long-term vision of Social Coding and a method called User Research. The outcome of which should be a roadmap that is driven by the needs of the users, the interest of the general public, rather than what paying customers are most interested in in the short term or whatever is most profitable to shareholders at a given point in time.
To this..
How can Forgejo go from an unsorted pile of ideas to an exciting roadmap? What innovations will inspire our contributors? And how do we transform them to concrete features that will be implemented, instead of lingering as open issues on the backlog? To address people's needs and be most beneficial for the commons and public interest, Forgejo will follow a structured method of User Research and align with Social Coding Movement, where we will contribute and evolve our insights about Free Software development best-practices.
The part about "paying customers" and "profitable to shareholders" need not be mentioned again. It weakens the positioning, when in the text it is already clear what audience is best addressed by what Forgejo will deliver. In other words "address people's needs and be most beneficial for the commons and public interest".
I copy/pasted just changing to be in the third person (no "we" or "our") to unify with the tone of the report.
You turned the text into "where contributors will contribute", which doesn't flow well.
From..
To address people's needs and be most beneficial for the commons and public interest, Forgejo will follow a structured method of User Research and align with Social Coding Movement, where we will contribute and evolve our insights about Free Software development best-practices.
To..
To address people's needs and be most beneficial for the commons and public interest, Forgejo will follow a structured method of User Research, align with Social Coding Movement principles, and contribute back insights about Free Software development to evolve the movement's best-practices.
@fsologureng a paragraph was added and is related to the work we are doing together on user research for accessibility.
No due date set.
No dependencies set.
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?