@eliasp works here

@thisismissem@hachyderm.io ah understood. I didn't quite get how the fund worked, but it makes more sense now (and is much simpler—organizationally—for Nivenly!) I don't think we'll add exclusions for security fund recipients I would say, though, that one of the requirements has to be that the affected software accepts the vulnerability. Plenty of self-proclaimed "security researchers" have filed reports, and some go as far as to publish CVEs (against our own software!) without our permission. Quite the opposite of responsible disclosure.

@Sunil-Kolluru nodebb-plugin-sso-oauth2-multiple

@reiver@mastodon.social apologies if this is inappropriate to ask, but has there been any thought given to speaker fees? I'm enthusiastic about ActivityPub and love to speak about it, but I'm not in an secure enough place financially to fly myself to Vancouver without some sort of arrangement in place.

@trwnh@mastodon.social yes, it is in regards to audience no longer being sent out by Lemmy. While it's defined in 1b12 it seems to be ancillary now, so updating that property would mean Lemmy would need to add support for it back.. not the end of the world.

@bz Bleibt halt #Automafia

@trwnh@mastodon.social sure, makes sense. That to/cc already exist in the wild as arrays means one less thing to worry about with multiple cross posts.