Should a single company control the Social Web?
-
@evan my point was more that “negativity” is not necessarily targeted at AP, but at the architecture and ecosystem of the present fediverse. people expressing their frustrations or criticisms should be seen as an opportunity to improve pain points at a protocol or profile level. one example is possibly spinning up a task force or report to document the lifecycles of resources and objects as they are created and deleted. another example is mapping out required properties and associated behaviors.
-
@evan basically, people want to see considerations go into one or more formally defined “protocols” that can be signaled or negotiated client-to-client or actor-to-actor. if i want to do a chess extension, i need to know that the other actor can play. if i want to do e2ee messaging, i need my keys negotiated between clients instead of actors. and if i want to make “posts” then i need to agree with other actors what a “post” is.
i’d be happy to bring this up at the cg meeting next week…
-
@evan at its core, AP lets you do a lot of really cool stuff — practically unbounded! which is both good from the perspective of what it enables you to do and build, but also it’s a lot to take in for any prospective users of AP in building software. i think as long as AP exists in the domain of the W3C, we have a responsibility to pave those paths so that people have an easier time understanding how everything fits together.
-
:PUA: Shlee fucked around andreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
-
@trwnh If you'd like to convince me that your negativity about AP is justified, and my positivity is off-track, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
-
@evan your positivity is justified, and also i do not intend it in a negative way when i mention criticisms. i am overall positive about AP, and i want to address identified issues as best as possible and as early as possible. if i didn't fundamentally believe in open standards, then i wouldn't bother putting in any of the work, time, or effort that i have in documentation or outreach, and i would quit my roles in various communities and teams. i **really** don't intend any antagonism or slight.
-
@evan however, i recognize that this branch of conversation may have ceased being productive, so i'll stop here and raise the aforementioned points on the CG meeting agenda instead.
-
Evan Prodromoureplied to Supergrobi last edited by [email protected]
@supergrobi sure. So, I'm talking about something more general about how my positive attitude rankles people, and @trwnh is bringing up very specific criticisms of ActivityPub.
I am definitely open to a's thoughts on AP; they are one of the smartest people thinking about the protocol today, and I've enjoyed working with them on the weekly issue triage for AP, as well as coauthoring the AP+Webfinger CG report. a also did technical review for the ActivityPub book I wrote.
-
Evan Prodromoureplied to Evan Prodromou last edited by [email protected]
@supergrobi @trwnh I definitely appreciate their idea of making a collection of profiles for AP to make it easier to build interoperable systems. I think there are better times and places to discuss that idea; it's not up to me personally to decide. As a suggests, a discussion in the SocialCG is a good next step.
-
@supergrobi @trwnh anyway, thanks for the note.
-
@supergrobi @trwnh in general, my position is that there are formal systems for people to give feedback and suggestions on ActivityPub, such as GitHub issues on the AP repository; discussions on SocialHub; posts to the SocialCG mailing list; discussions in the SocialCG meetings; creating FEPs; and creating extensions outside of the FEP process.
-
@supergrobi @trwnh I engage in discussions about AP on this account, but it is my personal account, and not an official feedback channel.
-
@supergrobi @trwnh my account at @evanprodromou is a good place to give feedback on the @swf and my work there.
