Thinking #BlueSky and #ATProto are the same thing is like thinking Mastodon and #ActivityPub are the same thing.

Steve Bate

@paul The following info is a ATProto "call for developers" but mentions several existing ATProto projects...

Call for Developer Projects · bluesky-social atproto · Discussion #3049

Call for Developer Projects

GitHub (github.com)

You should be able to find many others if you search for them.

Steve Bate

@nick @stereo Is it?Several/many implementations besides BlueSky use ATProto. BlueSky operates the *BlueSky* relays, not all ATProto-related relays. ATProto hasn't been submitted for formal standardization yet and I agree that's a difference. That's why ATProto can evolve more quickly than ActivityPub. As an AP developer, I believe AP would have benefited from more implementation/community experience prior to being frozen in 2018.

Nordnick 🐘

@[email protected] @[email protected]

Afaik currently #BlueSky runs the one and only relais. So currently they run the one and only #atproto relais.

That's the current situation. May change in the future. May not.

Open Risk

@steve @nick @stereo is (or should) #activitypub be considered really "frozen"?

The #bluesky/ #atproto experience seems to show that alternate (yet similar) designs are workable (the caveat is because as far as i know there is no fully developed federating constellation based on atproto).

Hiding besides a standard might be a losing proposition if there are real learnings that are ignored. Everything evolves and thinking of ActivityPub 2.0 or 3.0 is normal.

Steve Bate

@openrisk @nick @stereo It is frozen for now. There's discussion about forming a W3C working group to do some spec maintenance, but it's not clear if it will do more than fix typos and grammar and maybe clarify a few of the vague or ambiguous requirements (more a 1.1 than a 2.0). There are FEPs that propose workarounds for AP issues, but those are nonstandard and not official at all.

Aurélien

@openrisk @steve @nick @stereo is it ?
https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep

Steve Bate

@opsocket @openrisk @nick @stereo FEPs are nonstandard, nonofficial proposals by the community and are not even necessarily related to AP. They are also not governed by the W3C and have no direct impact on the AP specification (although they might inspire changes if a future W3C AP working group adopts them). Take a look at the FEP process definition for more details.

Aurélien

@steve @openrisk @nick @stereo Thanks for the clarification, it's strange that it's in a vegetative state and not a living standard. I wonder what motivated this decision. Are these discussions held publicly?

Sebastian Lasse

@opsocket @steve @openrisk @nick @stereo

Hello people,
not sure, I feel pretty alive and active and so does the W3C Social CG.

The discussions are held publicly, there are 7 Task Forces, I'm the Lead of the Policy SIG (Special Interest Group). We lately acted as invited experts for EU DMA/DSA and now relax a bit but not for all the Task Forces about Spec. works.
See also https://socialwebfoundation.org/2024/09/25/social-breakout-sessions-at-tpac-2024/

Join the Group https://www.w3.org/community/socialcg/ and then the mailing list and then the meetings.

Also: Meanwhile ActivityPub is Linked Data and so any client can extend it with such.
For the Public broadcasters and 3 different clients, I wrote support for the self explaining wikidata which is the knowledge of the world.

Steve Bate

@sl007 @opsocket @openrisk @nick @stereo The meetings are public, but to participate you must sign a contract (CLA) with the W3C and declare any professional affiliations.

Where are the 7 task forces listed and described? I only see 5 named on the SocialCG home page and I don't see a Policy Task Force there (I'm curious what it is).

Is the December 6 meeting where the potential WG chartering is going to be discussed again? The WG will be the only group with the authority to modify the spec.