Re: Statement

Agreed!

Personally, I like the statement. I agree with Eugen that online tribalism
and flame wars are inevitable, and generally not meaningful problems that
need to be addressed, but I'm still all for the letter's sentiment...

...but when Emelia asked me to review it, I missed that it was on the SWICG
GitHub specifically. Not the right process(es), and likely not the right
place. Seems like the simplest fix right now would be to keep it intact and
just move it somewhere else?

On Sat, Sep 6, 2025, 11:20 AM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:

> It's interesting to consider how and when the CG should publish
> non-consensus policy statements, open letters, or other documents. There
> are a lot of ways it could be done.
>
> And, of course, it's a big Web (and a big social web), so there's other
> space for members or groups of members to have their say, outside the
> systems maintained by the CG. The Web is a permissionless publishing
> platform; that's one of the reasons it's so great.
>
> If a document purports to be a position statement by the CG as a whole,
> though, I think it should go through our consensus processes.
>
> That includes discussion in GitHub issues or on the mailing list or during
> a sync meeting. We also require sufficient time for CG members to review
> and participate in a call for consensus.
>
> Evan
>
> On Sep 6, 2025 13:53, Aurélien <opsocket@proton.me> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I havn't been approached (ba dum tss!) and I mostly agree with Evan and
> Eugen on this one.
>
> However, there is clearly a need for communication that may not be
> addressed by current procedures. I don't have in-depth knowledge of these
> yet, but enabling public communication with some kind of qualified majority
> could ease tensions (which is ironic, btw) in the future.
>
> Aurélien
>
> Le samedi 6 septembre 2025 à 12:58 PM, Eugen Rochko <
> eugen@zeonfederated.com> a écrit :
>
> 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
>    <https://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 <https://chrismessina.me/>
>    - Christine Lemmer-Webber (Executive Director of Spritely, ActivityPub
>    co-author/co-editor) — @cwebber <https://social.coop/@cwebber> /
>    https://dustycloud..org <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
>
>
>
>
>
>