Convener: Babette Knauer (@babetteknauer@mastodon.social)

Participants who chose to record their names here:

• Mayel (Open Science Network & Bonfire) (@mayel@bonfire.cafe)
• Dave (@mcwumbly@mastodon.social)
• Mark Corbett Wilson (@mcorbettwilson@mastodon.social)
• Gilles Dutilh (@depemig@social.coop)
• Olivia

Notes

• How do we bring more academics onto the Fediverse, not just Mastodon, but the broader ecosystem? What tools and applications already exist in the Fediverse (or should exist) that could serve academic needs? How do we support/involve/cater for the academic community first, so that institutions feel compelled to support/engage, too?
• Unattributed - how can we motivate academic institutions to use the fediverse
  • did research on researchers personnally adopted mastodon, see https://zenodo.org/records/15582840
• Dave is curious if it’s the fediverse that’s the issue or to do with adopting other platforms
• Unattributed says we need to give insittutions the tools to achieve what we want, go local
• Where are the students on the fediverse
• unattributed - How is digital soverignty maintained with university
• unattributed - suggests bonfire as the suggested fediverse platform
• https://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mediadesign/Main_Page
• https://ibis.wiki
• https://forgejo.org/
• gilles: (as response to above) forgejo connection to Bonfire Open Science would be a selling point.
• gilles: I think, and expressed, that in order to get the science community federated, we need (loosely following Ben Wertmüllers keynote points):
  • A target group of people who can benefit from a specific solution. From their it may spread. I would think about a “local” community. As local as either a lab (literally local) or a scientific society (topic-nerds).
  • The solution must be a feature that can only exist in a federated, open network
    • Tommi proposed federated wiki as such a feature
    • Gilles proposed a feature that is not necessary fedi: There is a need for a better, cheaper “editorial manger” software. If one manages to implement such a software, while cheap and meeting the current journal needs, it may function as a Trojan horse. If you make all social roles in this software intrinsically federated, the connection to futrther fedi feature, like offered in Bonfire, is easily made.
  • (Ben Werdmullers third point of having the right team not covered here)
• If it’s helpful, here’s an essay on my lab’s setup: https://manifold.umn.edu/read/lab-cloud And our tools: https://git.medlab.host/MEDLab/Handbook/src/branch/main/docs/technology.md (Nathan)
• Demo of publishing a federated discusion to Zenodo/Knowledge Commons Works repositories: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yFL6PDatW_cjTUSgGbNL_J4U8RRVgVUC/view
• one of the drawbacks of the fediverse is it’s too open and may not be suited for institutional communication/collaboration where the institution may wish to maintain some access control (who can read/write messages) As well as how institutions can implement their existing policies to a fediverse platform they control and maintain. i.e. Staff-student sexual misconduct, will they treat interactions outside of their institution as communication on a third party platform which they have no control of or will they put in the work to moderate that. Part of maintaining a fediverse platform means assigning staff to be moderators.