RE : Re: Federation protocols

The more i follow this thread the more i see 2 teams wih different priorities in this group: one focused on discussing all the current projects promoting parallel initiatives that focus on specific topics/issues with little care about interop between them for now, the other wanting to select one project as reference for interop and true deployments and build on/evolve it progressively.

Should we formalize these 2 teams to start some concrete collaborations?

Walter



-------- Message d'origine --------
De : Nick Jennings <nick@silverbucket.net>
Date :
A : public-fedsocweb@w3.org
Objet : Re: Federation protocols



On Jun 12, 2013 2:06 AM, "Michał &apos;rysiek&apos; Woźniak" <rysiek@fwioo.pl<mailto:rysiek@fwioo.pl>> wrote:
>
> Dnia wtorek, 11 czerwca 2013 o 17:42:36 Nick Jennings napisał(a):
>
> > > > but hell, on twitter you can't even send messages to someone who isn't
> > > > following you.
> > >
> > > I call bull.
> > > "Dear @user_not_following_me, how's the weather?"
> >
> > The solution to sending private messages is sending them publicly. Problem
> > solved.
> > Write up the draft.
>
> Could I suggest, instead, to use the phrase "private mesages" whenever you're
> talking about, you know, *private* messages? That would save us this round-
> trip. For example.
>

On existing social platforms, and open protocols like Activity Streams,

A Message is the verb to describe text sent between two or more parties in private-ish context

A Post is the verb to describe public text between two or more parties

I thought you'd understand what I meant by message, especially in the context of my sentence (re: twitter).

> > > > That's what I mean about what do we mean about federation :)
> > >
> > > And I stand by my "we need to find ways to interoperate, or we will die
> > > in the
> > > wilderness between walled gardens".
> > >
> > > Look at the whole PRISM debate right now! People are waking up, and are
> > > enraged, and are looking for alternatives. And there is no alternative
> > > there.
> > > The more a user looks at libre social networking, the more they get the
> > > feeling that all there is is infighting and bickering about which of the
> > > several incompatible social networks to use.
> > >
> > > This is absurd. This is something we *have* to do something about.
> > > Instead of
> > > looking for a myriad of reasons not to.
> >
> > I don't want to continue to hash out protocol semantics. There are many
> > different people with many different perspectives and ideas. Not everyone
> > agrees with your ideas but I'm sure a lot of people do as well. In the end,
> > though, you can talk about it until you're blue in the face and we'll still
> > be right where we are.
>
> Yeah, I am starting to see that. That's a bit sad, but hey -- at least I
> tried.
>
> I still believe it would be possible to hash out a protocol that would at
> least provide interoperability. What I take from this whole thread is that
> surprisingly many of us here prefer looking for reasons not to do that or
> problems that arise, instead of finding ways to do proceed.
>

Don't you think that's jumping to a rather defeatist conclusion?

Just because we have different perspectives, that doesn't mean there aren't many of us working very hard to bring our ideas to fruition.

Sure, there are always people who just talk, complain about the problems with projects, and never write any code, but all you can do is to avoid being one of them yourself :)

> That's a very sad observation and a very sad statement on libre social
> networking. For me personally it strongly suggests libre social networking is
> not going to gain any serious traction in foreseeable future.
>

Maybe not in the way you expect it to.

Cheers,
Nick

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.

[cid:00000000000000000000000000000003@TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.