- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 15:11:35 +1100
- To: Sebastian Lasse <mail@sebastianlasse.de>
- Cc: "Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)" <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>, Nick Doty <ndoty@cdt.org>, public-interop-remedies@w3.org
Sebastian, > On 10 Jan 2022, at 2:49 pm, Sebastian Lasse <mail@sebastianlasse.de> wrote: > > I don't understand. > EU has now multiple times asked for technical input. > They need it BEFORE decisions. > > The only time I have ever seen W3C in the discussion was here > https://openforumeurope.org/event/ofe-lounge-series-standardisation-and-open-source/ > This is now the final stage! My understanding is that the DMA (much like the ACCESS Act in the US) defines the legal landscape for requiring interoperability (among many other things) from 'big tech'. It does not, however, specify the technical means of doing so -- instead, it creates the institutions and processes for finding and imposing them. As such, the important part of the DMA to focus on now is that those details are correct. >> But it's true that next week the trialogues will start, then there will be a final vote by the Parliament > After that it is too late and we can only react. > So, I am proposing to have a meeting of the ActivityPub Policy Group if this is maybe the wrong group. > > Personally, I get the impression that W3C is not for people. It seems to be something only for big companies or Trump. > Sad. I know you're frustrated, but this isn't a helpful attitude (and interjections like 'sad' are a hallmark of the person who you're complaining about -- not a good sign!). Successful discourse requires that people participate in good faith and that likewise good faith be assumed until there is solid evidence to the contrary. Statements like this only undermine the institution that people can use to find and further common goals. Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 10 January 2022 04:11:57 UTC