Re: Getting the group back on track

Folks,

I want to revisit my statement here. I apologize for not being in the
calls, and I think it's important that my intention isn't mischaracterized.

My intention was: "agree on something, and we will implement it". It was
not: "we love Activity Streams 2.0".

I wrote a piece the other day about web standards that adds further detail
to my position (
http://stream.withknown.com/2015/a-short-note-about-web-standards-from-your-friends-at).
It's important, in my opinion, that any standard is:

* Open
* Easy to implement
* Agnostic to ideology

This was true of HTML, and it's true (perhaps to a lesser extent) of RSS.
The cool thing about the web is that you can build something in an hour,
and I think it was key to its success. It started simple and iterated
through real-world use, which is how all successful technologies on the web
are built. Even the img tag, as we all know, was added later.
Standardization through organic use is powerful.

Known has the indieweb technologies built in, alongside RSS, because
they're simple, which is why I believe in them (we're about to deploy
across several university campuses, which will multiply the total userbase
by a factor of at least 6). They in themselves are iterations on Atom
primitives. To be clear, I'm not adverse to adding other technologies to
the mix at all - what I think is important is that the users of a
decentralized social web are a core part of determining its direction,
rather than it being dictated in a top-down fashion.

So, to revisit "agree on something, and we will implement it", for what
it's worth, I'd prefer it was a lightweight starting point that the web can
iterate on.

Ben


On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Ben Werdmüller <ben@withknown.com> wrote:

>
> Yes, if that is this group's firm recommendation. That doesn't mean we'll
> drop support for other formats (we will certainly continue to embrace
> indieweb recommendations), but I'm keen to see real-world interoperation
> happen on a wider scale.
>
> Ben
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/06/2015 10:20 PM, Ben Werdmüller wrote:
>>
>>
>> Please count Known in as an implementer. Happy to move forward quickly.
>>
>>
>> Of ActivityStreams 2.0 in particular?
>>
>>   cheers,
>>          harry
>>
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to this email.
>>>
>>> On 10/06/2015 07:06 PM, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>>> > Hello all,
>>> >
>>> > So I initially wrote a different version of this email, but I thought
>>> > today's call was lively enough that it deserved a rewrite.  So here
>>> > goes!
>>> >
>>> > I'm glad to hear that there's a general concern in the group that we
>>> > really need to get moving for real on the client to server / server to
>>> > server APIs.  I was also happy to hear that in general people seem
>>> eager
>>> > to get ActivityStreams to move forward.  Great news!  Now, can we do
>>> it?
>>> > Can we fulfill the missions of this group?
>>> >
>>> > I think we can.  ActivityStreams 2.0 is already looking quite polished.
>>> > Today we got some good clarity on what an ActivityStreams test suite
>>> > would look like, and I can help on this.  But the deliverables of
>>> social
>>> > api and federation api seem stuck in a rut.  At minimum, we need to
>>> > agree on a format and move forward with it.
>>>
>>> Right now, off top of my head implementers would be:
>>>
>>> 1) IBM Connections
>>> 2) Pump.io
>>> 3) MediaGoblin
>>> 4) Objective8 (Thoughtworks)
>>>
>>> Anyone else?
>>>
>>> Compared to many other W3C specs, if we can get them all *actually*
>>> implemented and tested that would be great - and would be fine for CR.
>>> While I admit AS2 implementer momentum is not as much as we want, it
>>> does exist.
>>> >
>>> > Since it's already a deliverable, the mandatory format might as well be
>>> > ActivityStreams + JSON.  It's okay to say in the specification that
>>> > other formats are optional, and here's how to handle them, but
>>> > ActivityStreams should be mandatory.  As Evan said on the call today,
>>> it
>>> > would "look strange" to not have that be part of the official APIs the
>>> > group puts forward.  But appearing non-strange is just one reason: the
>>> > goal of this group should be putting forward a standard that the real
>>> > world will probably use.  The real world is currently setting up
>>> > endpoints that shoot JSON back and forth at each other.  Well, we've
>>> got a
>>> > basis, and start defining how to shoot that across some endpoints.
>>>
>>> S/JSON/JSON-LD but yes, most people will use it as JSON.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > By the way, it's my observation (and actually not at all just my
>>> > observation, several people external to the group have raised this to
>>> > me, even while I was traveling to FSF 30th just this last weekend) that
>>> > one of the main causes of this group getting so "stuck in a rut" is
>>> that
>>> > this group is caught in the crossfire that has been going on for 15
>>> > years: Microformats vs Linked Data.  I have massive respect for people
>>> > on both sides, and I'd love to see this group serve some purpose of
>>> > seeing these sides come together, but more than anything I believe the
>>> > opposite has happened: again and again we get caught into age-old
>>> > arguments between these camps.
>>> >
>>> > The Microformats vs Linked Data war has been going on for 15 years.  If
>>> > it hasn't been solved outside of this group in all this time, there's
>>> no
>>> > way it can be reconciled inside this group.  Take it outside!
>>>
>>> I would suggest the Social IG. I would actually put the Activity
>>> Vocabulary and all vocabulary issues in the Social IG, as specified in
>>> the original charter.
>>>
>>> Some people seemed to dislike my noting what was on and out of scope of
>>> charter, but I might add we seem to have gone down a few ratholes and
>>> not made as much progress as we wanted. Let's reverse that trend by
>>> staying in charter and in scope!
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I have more to say on all the above subjects, but in the interest of
>>> > keeping this email short, here's a summary: we already have a nice and
>>> > dandy serialization format that fits the toolchains of most of the web
>>> > frameworks out there.  We've spent a lot of time getting it to a state
>>> > that the group seems reasonably happy with.  We should take advantage
>>> of
>>> > that and move forward on recommending APIs that people can use.
>>>
>>> +1. I hope we can get a LDP/micropub - and let's not forget ActivityPump
>>> convergence. Microformats can convert to JSON, and so can RDF. Thus, I
>>> don't see a huge problem with going forward with AS2.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > So, how about it?
>>> >  - Chris
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Ben Werdmuller*
>> CEO & co-founder, Known
>> withknown.com | werd.io
>> +1 (312) 488-9373
>>
>> Known, Inc | 421 Bryant St | San Francisco, CA 94107
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> *Ben Werdmuller*
> CEO & co-founder, Known
> withknown.com | werd.io
> <http://goog_1933028737>
> +1 (312) 488-9373
>
> Known, Inc | 421 Bryant St | San Francisco, CA 94107
>
>


-- 
*Ben Werdmuller*
CEO & co-founder, Known
withknown.com | werd.io
<http://goog_1933028737>
+1 (312) 488-9373

Known, Inc | 421 Bryant St | San Francisco, CA 94107