Re: Implementing Federation, Part I

In addition to my response to Evan yesterday, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2024Jan/0011.html

I'd like to respond specifically to:

> I don't believe SocialHub has a privileged position as the gatekeeper to develop new CG standards. <snip/>
> So, I'm -1 on Arnold's proposal.

I'll enumerate some points to stress there's no gatekeeping involved:

- The SocialHub merely facilitates the FEP process. Use of the forum for discussion is optional, just a default public channel always created and where community members may discuss.

- The FEP Editor team is only involved in ensuring that the FEP process itself is followed. Anyone can submit FEP's and give feedback on changing the process. FEP's can be humorous, or very specialistic/niche. Anyone can volunteer to help in the FEP process and e.g. join the FEP Editor team or contribute to automations/integrations, etc.

- From perspective of the Ecosystem there's free choice how one involves themself with the Standards Process. Be involved with SocialCG/WG directly. Write and use FEP's. Do both. All fine. There's no 3-2-1 pipeline.

- From perspective of the SocialCG/WG the FEP process serves to offload those concerns that are much further removed from general standardization as-yet. "Well, it is best to submit your Teapot extension as a FEP, and if it becomes popular we may consider it at W3C". And also "Hey, this is not relevant/OT for discussion in SocialCG. Maybe you best write a FEP first".

- FEP's are a pathway of convenience to W3C. Things that are FEP's, when they come to attention of W3C, have already risen above individual app concern. Have had the eyes and input of other people from the ecosystem on them. Have proven themselves to certain extent, and have working implementations. Have a certain popularity, show there's real needs & demand to be satisfied.

These things maybe weren't clear enough before. So I am asking Evan and others to once again give their consideration of this proposal.

On Wednesday, January 3rd, 2024 at 09:15, aschrijver <facilitator@humanetech.community> wrote:


> 
> 
> 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 Thursday, 4 January 2024 05:33:37 UTC