FEP-baf5: Administrator Collection

2026-05-23 01:01 UTC

The reason why attributedTo was chosen is because there is prior art to using that property to represent a collection of moderators. You could make the same argument against 1b12 (that moderators should be the key instead of attributedTo), too. The argument as to whether a custom property fits better is certainly valid, and worth debating. However, I would want to point out that keeping with prior art has the benefit of making this FEP much easier to adopt by threadiverse implementors.

Replies (1)

@silverpill@mitra.social 2026-05-23 07:21

My understanding from a reading of the relevant section from fe34 suggests a claim of A → B is reciprocal if there is an inverse claim B → A. Yes, and in my understanding these claims are: - This actor is authorized to delete/update this object. - This object is hosted on the server where this actor is an administrator. But I don't insist on importing this concept. I would want to point out that keeping with prior art has the benefit of making this FEP much easier to adopt by threadiverse implementors. I consider myself a threadiverse implementer too, and I don't really like the idea of dealing with ambiguous properties :) At the very least, could you add inbox and outbox properties to the Application actor example? https://codeberg.org/devnull/feps/src/branch/instance-admins/fep/baf5/fep-baf5.md#instance-actor-and-application-actor

Open ##2779283