@tyil @humanetech @ArneBab or maybe Github and Gitlab are the default choice because they meet the UX patterns expected from a modern source forge (plus, everybody is there already).

IMHO we're not addressing the "average user" who doesn't know how to run a git clone. We're addressing somebody who can already browse and contribute to projects on Github, who may also be pissed with the business direction of Github/Gitlab, and would like to try some alternatives, but they are too intimidated by a UI that looks like a Craigslist for source code.

Besides the aesthetics (which may be a personal choice), I see an issue with accessibility and discoverability too. I found a lot of interesting projects under e.g. https://git.sr.ht/~erock, but it's hard to browse them and search the codebase from the UI without cloning each of them. If I found an issue, I'd have no way of reporting it other than emailing the developer (with the obvious lack of public visibility on the development flow, as well as duplication of reports). I feel like the whole user experience has many avoidable friction points. I mean, if one likes to use it for their personal projects and doesn't intend to share them with anybody else, it's fair enough. But I wouldn't use it for something that I expect at least 4-5 people to use - let alone contribute.

@tyil @ArneBab

Yes, it is all about audience you cater for. Average person may not care about FOSS, but lotta FOSS cares about the average person. That leads to original observation by @blacklight

How can you hope to serve them when throwing something out there from such high technical vantage point?

This whole discussion once more goes from the assumption that only devs do FOSS. Yes, GH and GL are technical services, but they 1,000,000 vendor extensions/integrateions in their ecosystem.