Mbin is a decentralized content aggregator, voting, discussion and microblogging platform running on the fediverse network. It can communicate with many other ActivityPub services, including Kbin, Mastodon, Lemmy, Pleroma, Peertube. It is an open source alternative to other link aggregator services like Reddit. The initiative aims to promote a free and open internet.
Mbin is focused on what the community wants, pull requests can be merged by any repo owner (with merge rights in GitHub). Discussions take place on Matrix then consensus has to be reached by the community. If approved by the community, only one approval on the PR is required by one of the Mbin maintainers. It’s built entirely on trust.
It seems it’s claim to fame is being more open and accepting of community changes and improvements. It can install as either bare metal/VM or as a Docker container.
Although anyone can install it and self-host it, their project page also contains a link to various instances that already exist and which anyone can register on.
I think that text is from melroy, so according to him. From seeing his interactions in the kbin issue tracker I get somewhat of an egotistical impression of him, because he would often take an issue that has just been opened and not triaged or discussed what the best fix is, and he would open a PR with how he thinks it should be fixed, and it sounds like his frustration is that his hasty PRs weren’t getting merged quickly because people wanted to come to a consensus.
Maybe I’m just reading into it but it felt like he just wanted his name on something and it wasn’t happening with kbin.
Edit: I want to add that I don’t mean to shit on him as a dev or as a person - it’s possible that I’ve only seen a one-sided view of his interactions as a busy contributor who just wants to whittle down the issue list as fast as possible and that he’s got good intentions, and regardless he seems like a very capable dev. It’s just that based on my perusing of issues and discussions I’ve come across, it doesn’t seem fun to work with him to contribute, and if I were to treat the contributors list as a scoreboard and had the goal of having my name on as many commits as possible, I think it would be hard to tell us apart. I was just going to keep my thoughts about this to myself but I’ve seen some other people comment similar things in other threads about mbin so maybe it’s worth sharing my skepticism about mbin. Take from it what you will.
Not sure what you mean by management, or which aspect of management? The issue was more about acceptance of community enhancements through the open source code project. Some contributors felt they could move faster with more diverse enhancements. It may be something like the LibreOffice fork from OpenOffice, where some wanted to just move faster with changes.
Well, more power to them then! Ernest can then merge back the changes at his own pace, so everybody wins. Forks don’t need to be treated with hostility.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Wait Kbin’s management is problematic?
I think that text is from melroy, so according to him. From seeing his interactions in the kbin issue tracker I get somewhat of an egotistical impression of him, because he would often take an issue that has just been opened and not triaged or discussed what the best fix is, and he would open a PR with how he thinks it should be fixed, and it sounds like his frustration is that his hasty PRs weren’t getting merged quickly because people wanted to come to a consensus.
Maybe I’m just reading into it but it felt like he just wanted his name on something and it wasn’t happening with kbin.
Edit: I want to add that I don’t mean to shit on him as a dev or as a person - it’s possible that I’ve only seen a one-sided view of his interactions as a busy contributor who just wants to whittle down the issue list as fast as possible and that he’s got good intentions, and regardless he seems like a very capable dev. It’s just that based on my perusing of issues and discussions I’ve come across, it doesn’t seem fun to work with him to contribute, and if I were to treat the contributors list as a scoreboard and had the goal of having my name on as many commits as possible, I think it would be hard to tell us apart. I was just going to keep my thoughts about this to myself but I’ve seen some other people comment similar things in other threads about mbin so maybe it’s worth sharing my skepticism about mbin. Take from it what you will.
Not sure what you mean by management, or which aspect of management? The issue was more about acceptance of community enhancements through the open source code project. Some contributors felt they could move faster with more diverse enhancements. It may be something like the LibreOffice fork from OpenOffice, where some wanted to just move faster with changes.
Well, more power to them then! Ernest can then merge back the changes at his own pace, so everybody wins. Forks don’t need to be treated with hostility.
Exactly, most forks are considered a healthy thing