Re: Statement

Hi Emelia, Evan,

I've been approached with a draft of this statement last night and asked for a signature and I've expressed quite the same opinion -- there isn't enough time to review this. It's the weekend, nobody is around. I'm also not sure why this statement from the Social CG is necessary. People argue about IRC vs XMPP, Vim vs Emacs, all the time.

Kind regards,
Eugen Rochko

On Sat, 6 Sep 2025, at 18:31, emelia wrote:
> The statement is co-signed by the following people involved in the specification of ActivityPub and ActivityStreams:
> 
>  * Dmitri Zagidulin (Social CG co-chair) — @dmitri@social.coop <https://social.coop/@dmitri>
>  * Tantek Çelik (Former Social Web Working Group co-chair) — @tantek.com
>  * James (Former SocialCG co-chair) — jamesg.blog (@jamesg.blog@jamesg.blog <https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://jamesg.blog/>)
>  * Chris Messina (Citizen Agency, creator of ActivityStreams) — @chrismessina.me
>  * Christine Lemmer-Webber (Executive Director of Spritely, ActivityPub co-author/co-editor) — @cwebber <https://social.coop/@cwebber> / https://dustycloud.org
>  * Darius Kazemi (Social Web CG member) — @darius@friend.camp <https://friend.camp/@darius>
> 
> (full list here: https://github.com/swicg/general/blob/master/statements/2025-09-05-activitypub-and-atproto-discourse.md#co-signed-by-the-following-community-members )
> 
> All the statement says is that we can be respectful towards one another, stop spreading misinformation about each 
> other, and instead work together and learn from one another. That _is_ a good thing for the AcitvityPub and the 
> entire open social web, in mine, and from what I can tell, their opinions.
> 
> You are free to dissent though. So far you're the only voice within the people who work on the specifications that I have heard dissenting, though.
> 
> Yours,
> Emelia
> 
>> On 6 Sep 2025, at 18:22, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:
>> 
>> There's a statement published on the SWICG GitHub repo that had neither a proposal nor a CFC period. 
>> 
>> I strongly disagree with it. Can we take it down until consensus is reached? 
>> 
>> Evan