Considering to move from a selfhosted gitea to Github with flockingbird. Sourcecode, issues, wiki/documentation.
* Discoverability: We're just more visible on GH than on "some random website".
* Participation barrier: you probably have a GH account, but certainly no account yet on our instance.
* Defacto standard: external systems like CI, support etc all require github.
It feels a bit like giving in, but the benefits seem to outweigh the idealistic stance.
What do you think?
@flockingbird Rather than asking whether "the benefits outweigh the idealistic stance" (a framing that, I'd argue, prescribes the answer) I would instead consider what problems you will have to solve (make a concrete list!) if you do the idealistic thing and whether you think they can be dealt with, given your resources.
@freebliss Thanks for the suggestion.
We did that. And the outcome was clear: go for Github.
But that makes me unconfortable and feels like "giving up on free, decentralised web". Yet such a "feeling" is hard to place in a concrete list.
Hence the request for some other viewpoints here. Sorry if the "framing" comes over as such: it was an honest request for input on a matter that is important to us, yet hard to quantify; if at all.
@flockingbird I see. Well if you seriously "did the math" then even if it feels bad you should go with github! :), because anything else will, according to your considerations, hinder your project so much that it's of no help to the cause anyway. Failing idealistically is failure. If I misread things and you wanted feedback on your bullet points, mine would be that I would consider Discoverability and Participation Barrier both moot: Any serious and viably attractive project should and will (I believe) succeed without the extra discoverability GH provides, if it does not the proposition or marketing is probably too weak (note that this is no judgement on your project, I don't know it (yet)). Likewise any serious and determined contributor - the ones a project really needs - will not be hindered by having to register somewhere (my feeling anyway) and one shot "drive-by" contributions are probably negligible in the big picture. One shot issues/bugreports might be a relevant factor though, I concede to that.
@flockingbird you could ask @yarmo who is creating https://keyoxide.org/ from #codeberg where I also have an account and several orgs. He has set up an self-hosted #drone CI environment that looks quite cool (the whole project does).
You might consider mirroring to GH, where you have the topic tags for findability, ppl can clone, fork, download releases, etc.
I intend to have some fedi projects both on GH (code) and codeberg (architecture discuss, docs dev).
What I did is having my main repo on #codeberg and an empty repo with a link to main repo on GH. So it's discoverable on GH. There's just a link you have to follow and an account to make if you wish to contribute. So far, it's working: people passionate enough made accounts to contribute. Am I missing out on contribs? Most likely. But that was my "maths". No drive by issues, no incendiary threads.
I get to wake up knowing what I'm doing is the right thing and not give in. And I'm promoting alternatives. If I want a future without GH, I need to make that future possible. I can't expect the world to move beyond GH if I can't make the effort to.
Now the big one: will my project fail because of this? It just might. But if so, I will have learned an invaluable lesson about hypocrisy and double down on alternatives.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!