Re: RE : Re: Federation protocols

[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).
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)


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<mailto: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.

Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.