@julian Should people be able to lock/unlock their own threads? Facebook supports this, and I've seen plenty of people ask for this on the Fediverse, too.

In my own notes I have separate "locked by moderator" and "locked by OP" properties, so that moderators and OPs can only undo their own locks, not each other's.

@julian@fietkau.social yes, I was aware of some overlap with GtS interaction policies/reply-controls, although this is less fine grained and isn't tied to the posting user — it's scope is actually larger!

This might be done at the moderator/admin level, and would be functionally equivalent to:

[... rest of the interaction policy ...],
"canReply": {
  "automaticApproval": [],
  "manualApproval": []
},
[... rest of the interaction policy ...]

or whatever shorthand is available (canReply: false?)

This FEP is also part of the resolvable contexts tree of FEPs, so they don't refer to post objects themselves, but the entire comment tree. That means if a topic is locked, you can't reply to any of its children either, at least relative to the context/OP's POV.

@julian@fietkau.social that context locking has a scope that expands past GtS interaction policies is distinction worth pointing out.

I'll update the FEP to note the difference.

@julian Parts of FEP-5219 are implemented in Mitra. You could be the next implementer

It's not really ready though, I am still collecting feedback from developers that need fine-grained permissions. We need a system that works for them as well as for simple forums where two roles is enough (user and admin).

@Profpatsch

@julian@activitypub.space Thank you! Yes, the context-level interaction controls (we talked about them briefly near the start of the year) will most likely not be part of v1 of my document.

I am still curious whether a FEP-c0d0 lock and the interaction policy you posted are indeed equivalent given these conditions: https://docs.gotosocial.org/en/latest/federation/interaction_controls/#implicit-assumptions I'm assuming no.

In my draft text I leave it open whether an interaction constraint is imposed by the post author or a moderator. Maybe this distinction should be explicit.

@julian@fietkau.social the implicit assumptions AIUI:

• OP always has ability to modify
• mentioned and inReplyTo are always able to reply

These are implicit to microblog style interactions and would not apply in a threaded context.

It's a difference in delegation of moderation power to category/forum level moderators and admins.

Likely worth noting in the FEP as well.

@julian@activitypub.space Perfect, that's what I figured. Thanks again, and let's keep in touch about the topic.

@julian @julian

the context-level interaction controls

This is documented in FEP-171b: Conversation Containers.

@technical-discussion

@silverpill Yes, FEP-171b is very important related work which could be usefully combined with interaction policies, I think. But the document I'm working on will provide at most a rough, non-normative outline of what that combination could look like.

@julian@activitypub.space @technical-discussion

I don't see much in 171b re: access/reply controls.

That said 171b also is an opinionated departure from 1b12 so might be we'd want access controls split off from 171b perhaps, so they can be shared?

cc @julian@fietkau.social