Re: Getting the group back on track

Ben Werdmüller writes:

> 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

Ben, I agree with this and would like to see it happen.

Getting any sort of agreement seems to be the hard part, now...

Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 20:12:49 UTC