I've been turning this thought over in my head for a couple days, and I'm curious what others think. I don't know that this is something that would ever turn into a proposal, possibly just an idea to contemplate.Some observations:1) I'm pretty new to social.coop, but from things various more senior members have said, I have the impression that decision-making and community-building were easier when the community was smaller.2) It also seems from a couple of recent conversations (e.g., the one about deferation from / moderation of Threads.net if they ever implemented ActivityPub, but the one about putting together an Organizing Circle, and one about how to moderate misinformation) that there is quite a bit of divergence among our members in visions for how the instance should be run.3) Meanwhile, it seems that there are a shortage of democratically run Fediverse instances out there.All of this has me wondering whether if we are too big for comfortable discussion of many decisions, might we be large enough to split off into two or more instances?I do think there would be more value in having a larger ecosystem of democratically run cooperatively owned instances out there, and this could be one strategy to bringing this about. I know we've also had members give presentations on this kind of thing, but I'm wondering if kicking off new instances from the inside might be easier than mentoring new instances on the outside.Thoughts?

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects. If you are interested in joining our community, please apply at https://wiki.social.coop/registration-form.html.