reiver@mastodon.social that's the first time I've seen the FediOrigami logo, looks neat!

pfefferle@mastodon.social only one way to find out

I think the FEP process is overly complicated for what it is, but it's definitely helpful if you have multiple implementors on board. The easiest (but least accessible) solution is to document something on your own site, but that lacks the social proof that a finalized FEP has. Just some food for thought I'm looking to create an FEP for cross posting and would love to get the entire threadiverse dev community involved.

A note that the ForumWG meeting is scheduled to begin shortly: https://meet.jit.si/ap-forum-wg

@thisismissem@hachyderm.io ah understood. I didn't quite get how the fund worked, but it makes more sense now (and is much simpler—organizationally—for Nivenly!) I don't think we'll add exclusions for security fund recipients I would say, though, that one of the requirements has to be that the affected software accepts the vulnerability. Plenty of self-proclaimed "security researchers" have filed reports, and some go as far as to publish CVEs (against our own software!) without our permission. Quite the opposite of responsible disclosure.

Let's clarify something here. Mastodon follower only posts don't have the "public pseudo user" addressed, do they? That's the important piece that this whole thing hinges upon If it is present, Mastodon is a fault. If not, Pixelfed messed up. No?

@mario@hub.somaton.com thanks, I tested that payload and it successfully edited the post, so at least from the payload point of view there is no issue. Perhaps there is a problem with the http signature on update? Is that handled differently than a create?

Good lord @liaizon@social.wake.st did you just necro a 3 year old topic