On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 14:31 -0400, Matt Lee wrote: > On 06/18/2010 12:15 PM, Sean Corbett wrote: > > I think the intention is that these will just be some base instances > > of GNU Social to provide a foundation of servers to work with, not > > the entire social network per se (in the same way that identi.ca > > isn't the only StatusNet server). We wouldn't require people to use > > names from this list.. We still expect (and encourage) people to > > install their own instances of GNU Social once the alpha/subsequent > > versions are released. > > but this list is crucial too -- having a serious list of dozens of > servers will prevent everyone, even those who don't want to run their > own servers, from using the same server, which is something we'd like to > avoid.
This does seem like a good idea (and it implies that there should be an index of some kind, like xmpp.org has here: <http://xmpp.org/services/>). Who will be running these servers? Presumably not the same legal entity, because that would defeat the point, right (or am I missing something)?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
