forgejo is working on federation. They’ve been working on it for a certain amount of time by now, but I do think we can expect some concrete version of what you describe in terms of community to materialize in the next decade as long a people want it and are motivated enough
when talking about code that is stored in a version control software that supports decentralized state (git, mercurial are the 2 I have working knowledge of) the “easy” fix for low bus factors is to just fork/mirror the software you want to see continue to exist. Source code is not that voluminous, I would be surprised if [the collective we] can’t manage to store multiple copies of the sources for software we deem useful. It’s a question of changing habits, not finding some miracle tech
Of course, habits aren’t necessarily easy to change.
Your comment contains an implicit assumption; there is always a co-occurrence between active development, and all ever grown interest in a project.
A person could grow a newfound interest in a repo after 1/3/5/10/20 years of inactivity. Most people are not glued to their chairs watching endless feeds, and bookmarking/starring (and maybe forking) all repos of interest away. The “normal” chain of events usually starts with a person growing a need for certain functionality (for research or direct use), and then checking out all tools, libraries, or resources available related to that functionality.
Relying on users to only “seed” repos they approve of is not a good strategy for high availability, for many reasons, not the least of which is the tendency of some users to develop tantrums over time, and pressing the “remove account and delete all history” button*. This is why anonymous distributed storage is unrivaled as an availability provider, at least for a period. Long term availability however still requires frequent re-grabbing or re-insertion (both have the same “refreshing” effect in these networks).
*Pushing code repos themselves to the side again, a decision will also have to be made with regards to whether the “ghost” behavior from GitHub should be replicated, or should “respecting the user wishes” to really delete EVERYTHING take precedence. Deciding this is important as it would/should be a part of the user agreement.
I agree with most of what you’re saying, but:
forgejo is working on federation. They’ve been working on it for a certain amount of time by now, but I do think we can expect some concrete version of what you describe in terms of community to materialize in the next decade as long a people want it and are motivated enough
when talking about code that is stored in a version control software that supports decentralized state (git, mercurial are the 2 I have working knowledge of) the “easy” fix for low bus factors is to just fork/mirror the software you want to see continue to exist. Source code is not that voluminous, I would be surprised if [the collective we] can’t manage to store multiple copies of the sources for software we deem useful. It’s a question of changing habits, not finding some miracle tech
Of course, habits aren’t necessarily easy to change.
Your comment contains an implicit assumption; there is always a co-occurrence between active development, and all ever grown interest in a project.
A person could grow a newfound interest in a repo after 1/3/5/10/20 years of inactivity. Most people are not glued to their chairs watching endless feeds, and bookmarking/starring (and maybe forking) all repos of interest away. The “normal” chain of events usually starts with a person growing a need for certain functionality (for research or direct use), and then checking out all tools, libraries, or resources available related to that functionality.
Relying on users to only “seed” repos they approve of is not a good strategy for high availability, for many reasons, not the least of which is the tendency of some users to develop tantrums over time, and pressing the “remove account and delete all history” button*. This is why anonymous distributed storage is unrivaled as an availability provider, at least for a period. Long term availability however still requires frequent re-grabbing or re-insertion (both have the same “refreshing” effect in these networks).
*Pushing code repos themselves to the side again, a decision will also have to be made with regards to whether the “ghost” behavior from GitHub should be replicated, or should “respecting the user wishes” to really delete EVERYTHING take precedence. Deciding this is important as it would/should be a part of the user agreement.