Re: Proposal ideas for Activity Streams 3 Standard

a wrote:

> i'm not sure that this is significantly different. such "Group" actors are
> still actors.

It *IS* significantly different because two people, after both reading only
the ActivityStreams and ActivityPubs specifications, are unlikely to
independently implement systems sufficiently similar to allow
interoperability without first exchanging information about their specific
implementations. Thus, the existing specifications are inadequate in this
context. Vague statements are simply not useful when defining protocols and
achieving interoperability.

Given that Lemmy <https://join-lemmy.org/> actually works, there is
undoubtedly a good bit of value in the Lemmy Protocol
<https://join-lemmy.org/docs/en/federation/lemmy_protocol.html> protocol
specification. However, it is also highly probable that the Lemmy
implementers, like all implementers, have omitted or simply not recognized
some group-support requirement that others would consider important. Thus,
it would make sense for the community group to carefully review their
protocol and determine if it does, in fact, properly cover all "Group"
needs, not just those they have implemented. Ideally, such a review, along
with a review of any other "Group" systems, would lead to a new
specification that outlines the protocol for a generic group-based system.

bob wyman