<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Hi Dianne,<br>
<br>
This might not be worth the chatter for something you may have
already ruled out, but to be sure:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20220630165932.20eb302f@gato.skoll.ca">My self-hosted
git repo at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://git.skoll.ca/Skollsoft-Public/mailmunge">https://git.skoll.ca/Skollsoft-Public/mailmunge</a>
will always be available. However, I'm looking for a hosted
service
on which people can file issues and open PRs. <b> I do not want
to deal
with the infrastructure needed to permit that.</b></blockquote>
I'm not sure if you know that this is quite easy with your Gitea. In
Site Administration->Authentication Sources, you can set up
OAuth2 with a variety of vendors. On that page it points to the
relevant docs for each vendor.<br>
<br>
I set up GitHub as an OAuth2 provider and it works fine. Obviously
this leads to a grey area on the degree to which it is necessary to
abandon GitHub or other vendors that are hostile to your interests.
Hhaving authentication provided by GitHub does then require that the
other contributors have GitHub account which could be see to
undercuts the point. Other than Gitea itself and GitLab, I think all
of the other options are also closed source and would defy the
spirit of the SFC article as well.<br>
<br>
However, migrating to another, probably much less popular, platform
completely - when most people have an account with at least one of
these OAuth2 providers already - may undercut the point of allowing
access to create issues and PRs. Having to create yet another
account does add some degree of friction.<br>
<br>
I'm actually a big fan of having GitHub projects that point to
alternative repository hosts, especially self-hosted ones. It
maintains the discoverability benefits of GitHub, while using that
platform against itself to advertise alternatives. Also leveraging
it to allow for users to more easily participate in the use of those
alternatives seems to me to be another reasonable way to use them
against themselves while the community as a whole comes to some
consensus on what alternative tools to engage with.<br>
<br>
With the funding and support issues that full open projects often
face, it can be a risk to jump in with one just to have it either
sink or have to abandon those ethics to stay afloat. Your own
self-hosted offering does not have that problem so long as you
maintain it yourself, so providing ways to have as much activity
done there as possible and replacing the GitHub repo with a link
directly to it seems like the ideal solution to me.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
John Mertz<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mail@john.me.tz">mail@john.me.tz</a>
</body>
</html>