Recent searches
Search options
With respect to #ActivityPub:
Simply, having now seen more into the guts of the process and how it is managed both historically and today, and understanding how the w3c works, I have no faith in their ability to define a clear consensus way forward out of the current set of problems.
Not "no faith in <timeline>" but no faith in the ability to define a clear way forward here.
This doesn't mean that someone outside of w3c couldn't define a better way forward, even one using AP, but w3c won't.
One way forward:
Someone defines a way forward within the FEP process. Not as in a static document, but builds a working group "chartered" by a FEP ( @smallcircles would appreciate this, I think).
But ultimately we're looking at needing a "AP2" and that is a fundamentally broken prospect looking at the w3c processes today. Even if they could produce such I have no faith that the problems are understood or that the right people would be in the room.
Fundamentally though I think what is required is:
1. A working group
2. Chartered outside of the w3c
3. That does not work piecemeal
4. With a vision to move past AP and a willingness to break compatibility
@hrefna Yes. Exactly this. I would personally suggest that the best target to aim for, in compatibility terms, is "possible to develop incrementally, and relatively easy to extend from existing AP logic"
@jenniferplusplus @hrefna Yes to this.
If we *have* to break compatibility, fine, let’s go. But hopefully we can provided a smooth migration path so we’re not rebuilding the whole network from scratch.
The existing AP network (flaws and all) is incredibly valuable -- especially for microscopic projects like mine because it solves the “empty party” problem. If I can connect into an existing network, my app is instantly more valuable.
@hrefna given how [w3c accepts drm money](https://www.defectivebydesign.org/w3c), i don't know much about the prospects of fediverse under w3c control
- With a vision to move past AP and a willingness to break compatibility
I think alone clearly stating what this vision is, and formulating acceptance criteria for it, would be of immense help.
My personal acceptance criteria (of a social networking protocol) is: When building a recipe sharing app, a developer has to worry more about converting three tea spoons of salts into sensible units, than what the exact data structure that represents a message is, or how other applications display the recipe (if they even do).
I created a topic: Wiki: Vision for a Fedi Specification at discuss.coding.social to start developing a vision.
@hrefna i wonder if the ietf might be a better forum for this
@noah ATProto thinks so. Last I checked that’s where they wanted to standardize
@hrefna yeah, for a protocol like ap or atproto, the ietf is probably as well-setup as you're going to get
@hrefna we would be very happy to join such a working group
@hrefna we'd like to propose just making a coalition of the willing without any overarching organization, and then having meetings and longform discussions in the way that a standards body does