2026-07-28 11:58 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@Bonfire@bonfire.cafe 2026-07-28 12:25
@fresseng@universites.social correct, and it's also responsibility of the scientific community to engage and codesign with us the exact features, user experience and goverance models that are needed for open science to thrive beyond capitalistic and closed platforms. The goal of the Open Science Network has always been to give the scientific community a real opportunity to shape and govern not only its own servers, but also the software roadmap, rather than reproducing a top-down model in which yet another company builds features for others to adopt without meaningful participation :) @AvSchroeder@fedihum.org @UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org @lavaeolus@fedihum.org @pierre@universites.social @unif@universites.social @jorgeluis@mastodon.pub.solar
-
@lavaeolus@fedihum.org 2026-07-28 12:05
@fresseng@universites.social @AvSchroeder@fedihum.org Agreed :) Another possible avenue: Scientific associations could take on the costs & general responsibility for an instance. They might be less ... sluggish compared to universities It's what we are doing here at https://fedihum.org/about btw. For the record: I strongly believe we need (online) spaces where people can be part of a scientific community without the 'wall' of ORCID, Zenodo or institutional SSO. @UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org @Bonfire @pierre@universites.social @unif@universites.social