Re: RE : Re: Federation protocols

On 12 June 2013 15:11, Goix Laurent Walter <
laurentwalter.goix@telecomitalia.it> wrote:

> [snip]
>
> This is exactly what we tried 3 years ago with OStatus / Status.net ... it
> didnt work, because everyone fanned out and stopped working together, and
> this group essentially went inactive.
>
>  The natural tendency of people is to work in islands, which has created
> silos.
> [walter] i understand this as a -1 towards the bottom-up approach. of
> course we cannot force people to work together but “choosing” one now that
> some more experience has been made may be one step in the direction
> of “working together” as well. not everyone will be happy with it but at
> least some will, whilst now nobody is happy (from the deployment
> perspective; people may be happy of pursuing their own solution based on
> their own ideas).
>

It's not -1 to the bottom up approach.

The bottom up approach is already happening, and will continue to do so.
Each project will advance on its own list, and many of us follow many lists.

It's a -1 for *this* forum to be the bottom up approach, because it turns
into evangelism where no one is completely happy.  I've seen this end
unproductively almost every 6 months since about 2007, the conversation
gets conflated and focus is lost, and progress or momentum dies.



>  I could be completely wrong, but I think we need to to work together in
> *this* group to create standards and best practices for federation, which
> hasnt happened.  That said, every project has it's own mailing list, and
> people are very welcome to work on systems they like.  But I think this
> list should be for people that are serious about working *together*
>
> [walter] i see this as +1 for top-down approach and working together to
> share the experience done so far, name it best practises or common open
> issues depending on the angle you view it. re “create standards” i do not
> follow you completely as imho this would be only a secondary step after we
> share some knowledge on best practises and current open issues. only then
> we can start tackling these open issues by discussing and target a spec
> that incorporates these findings. in parallel to this second step we can
> choose/mix implementations to work possibly on a reference implementation
> for that common standard (if any, but i do would like to see one emerging
> in the future, from this group possibly)
>

Opinions we are not short of.  We need a place where people that are
serious about interoperating can come together, write code, test cases, and
make progress.

We are not creating standards, they already exist.  A best practice
document shows how what is already there, can be used to join the dots.

Where people are less familiar explaining how things can be fit together,
and grow the network effect through federation.


>
>  Just my 2 cents (I could be completely wrong) ...
>
>
>>  walter
>>
>>  *Da:* Michiel B. de Jong
>> *Data invio:* mercoledì 12 giugno 2013 11.41
>> *A:* public-fedsocweb@w3.org
>>
>> On 2013-06-12 11:16, Nick Jennings wrote:
>> > On Jun 12, 2013 10:22 AM, "Goix Laurent Walter"
>> >> Should we formalize these 2 teams to start some concrete
>> >> collaborations?
>> >
>> > Sure, that could help to avoid these kinds of "chasing our tail"
>> > discussions in the future.
>>
>> from my point of view, maybe we can describe it as "bottom-up" (build
>> stuff, use it, and see what synergies emerge) vs "top-down" (document
>> and discuss things that we already know could work for everybody, to
>> avoid reinventing all sorts of wheels).
>>
>> i don't see them as "camps" but just a distinction to help us all
>> understand each other. i think we need both approaches to work in
>> tandem, for best results.
>>
>>
>>  my 2ct,
>> Michiel
>>
>>    Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente
>> alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione
>> derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente
>> vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete
>> cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di
>> provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
>>
>> *This e-mail and any attachments** is **confidential and may contain
>> privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination,
>> copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and
>> advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.*
>> *[image: rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa
>> mail se non è necessario.*
>>
>>
>>
>
>