Re: Implementing Federation, Part I

In the context of a discussion I just had with Steve Bate and Evan on exactly this topic, I just added a clarification on how I see the role of SocialHub, and that role corresponds to the sentiments expressed by Evan. Namely that SocialHub should not assert any authority. This is not needed at all. SocialHub merely _facilitates_ the FEP process, and the process itself already facilitates people to create and finalize FEP's without ever interacting on SocialHub forum directly, if they wish.

See for more context my latest reply on the 3-stage standards process topic: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/3-stage-standards-process-guaranteeing-an-open-and-decentralized-ecosystem/3602/31

> What do you mean by "hasn't been addressed here"? I personally think all the points you made there are very valid, and pretty much self-evident. What sort of thing would you like to see, in terms of addressing?

Informally saying there's a 3-stage process isn't enough. We should popularize the process, introduce people to it, and ensure that people actually devle into the process, so stuff from the ecosystem permeates 'upwards', into FEP's and/or more formal W3C artifacts.

It would entail that on the CG's pages/wiki the procedure is recognized/documented, same as SocialHub should clearly advertise it on the new activitypub.rocks Developer Portal (that is a do-ocracy project patiently waiting to be furthered). See for the latter: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/activitypub-rocks-portal-from-standards-movement-to-grassroots-fedi/3577

On Wednesday, January 3rd, 2024 at 01:32, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:


> I don't think it's self-evident.
> 
> I don't believe SocialHub has a privileged position as the gatekeeper to develop new CG standards.
> 
> I think the FEP process is fine; it makes one good input stream for extensions for AS2 and AP. But it's not the only such input stream.
> 
> In general, I appreciate SocialHub as a place for conversations. I don't think it should be a necessary component in the workstream of the CG.
> 
> So, I'm -1 on Arnold's proposal.
> 
> Evan
> 
> On 2024-01-02 5:02 p.m., Dmitri Zagidulin wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 2:29 AM aschrijver <facilitator@humanetech.community> wrote:
> > 
> > > I might add to this that on Codeberg the organisation https://codeberg.org/fediverse is affiliated to SocialHub already, and hosts the FEP Process. The SocialCG might be mirrored here, or even finds its home on Codeberg.
> > 
> > 
> > I totally agree with you, re Github vs Codeberg. I'd certainly prefer the latter, but I also recognize the sunk costs the community has in adopting GH.
> > And like you said, just mirroring SocialCG's github to Codeberg would be a great first step!
> > 
> > > That would be in line also with the 3-stage Standards Process that I am much in favor of to guarantee an open and decentralized ecosystem for the Fediverse. See: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/3-stage-standards-process-guaranteeing-an-open-and-decentralized-ecosystem/3602
> > > 
> > > TL;DR this process is: Ecosystem --> FEP/SocialHub --> W3C SocialCG/WG
> > > 
> > > Despite the proposal being 3 months old, receiving positive reactions by multiple representatives of the SocialCG it hasn't been addressed here. Something I also mentioned in a recent reply: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/3-stage-standards-process-guaranteeing-an-open-and-decentralized-ecosystem/3602/30?u=aschrijver
> > 
> > 
> > What do you mean by "hasn't been addressed here"? I personally think all the points you made there are very valid, and pretty much self-evident. What sort of thing would you like to see, in terms of addressing?

Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2024 08:16:15 UTC