@freemo Have you all considered making the UFoI non-binding? I.e. instead of a "you-can't-block" list, it could be a "you-shouldn't-block" list. That would ameliorate many of the concerns that opposed admins have about "being forced to federate".
Another option would be to make it a two-tier system. "Member servers" agree to never block anyone on the list, and get full voting rights, while "Associate servers" aren't bound by the block list, but only get half voting rights.
🇳🇱
@LouisIngenthron Yes I've considered basically that... using a coalition as a way to add an optional "we dont block" aspect but making the core nonbinding... im not sure if i like it, but I am open to the idea if it brings in more members.
Keep in mind the right-to-leave already makes it non binding in a way, just not the best solution perhaps for this problem.
@LouisIngenthron Possibly yes... if it helps bring in even a few people I'd be ok with it.. funneling it into a coalition is fine really, though i think it makes the UFoI less meaningful.. like if the point of the UFoI is to show a bunch of instances vetted and approve other instances as "good actors" does that really mean anything if instances dont even trust their own well enough to federate?
@freemo Some might not, sure. But those same instances would never even consider joining in the first place otherwise.
I think the binding resolution is scaring people off. If it were more of a "lead-by-example" system, I think people would be more likely to take it in good faith.
But I'm sure you've got your finger on that pulse better than I do.
Just a thought.
@LouisIngenthron No you could be right.. ive been considering it as well, just not sure on which way to go yet... but we are thinking along the same lines
I union with stronger bonds between instances, even not involving the whole of the fediverse, seems to be a better path to take than the fragile and prone-to-abuse one we've been on so far.
I suppose some middle ground could be sought with an option for silencing as a temporary resort, to avoid breaking connections between users until due process runs its course (is that in the current proposal already? it might be, I forget)
cc: @freemo
@freemo I agree that makes it non-binding, but it seems like it's enough of an image problem that it could kill the initiative if not addressed properly.