- From: Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2025 15:22:05 -0400
- To: Social Web Incubator Community Group <public-swicg@w3.org>
- Cc: Ryan Barrett <public@ryanb.org>, emelia <emelia@brandedcode.com>
- Message-ID: <CANnQ-L4-FGRLTWxjGYSDxcax-tMHo2-Hqw=LXpcEZZupT7xMsA@mail.gmail.com>
Emelia, Completely understood. That was my own fault and oversight there. Yes, lets reopen the PR and wait for the agreed-upon 14 day CfC period. And meanwhile, in parallel, I also fully agree with the sentiment and the signatories in the letter, but that doesn't mean we can go around group consensus. On Sat, Sep 6, 2025, 2:51 PM emelia <emelia@brandedcode.com> wrote: > So I do have a copy already on a different domain, I'm waiting for others > to decide what is right for the document that currently exists. > > If you _really_ want it taken down, despite the significant number of > people involved in the SWICG and standards processes who have co-signed it, > then here is a statement for that: > > > A statement document was originally published here, however, we have > since received an objections to its publication citing that proper > processes were not followed, and therefore it has been taken down and > republished on [Emelia's website] instead, whilst we seek community group > consensus. When Emelia merged the pull request, she had been granted > permission to do so by the co-chair of the Social Web CG, and given the > number of signatories with various significant contributions to ActivityPub > and ActivityStreams, Emelia believed that there was enough agreement to > publish. > > I will note that Dan Appelquist (Co-Chair of the W3C Advisory Board) also > left a comment on the issue for additional signatures in support of the > document. There is quite a lot of people who agree with the sentiment of > this statement, and I wonder what is the benefit to either protocol to take > it down, besides to fan flames of a protocol war that serves to benefit > nobody. We are stronger together against walled gardens than what we are > divided, and this current division does not benefit the people we aim to > serve by building open social web protocols. We need to put people first, > not protocols not platforms. > > In writing the document, I tried my best to keep it focused on the > similarities that we do have, and on the fact that all standards work > involves multiple parties coming together to participate in a cordial > manner. I'm not saying anyone has to like or adopt AT Protocol, and that we > can be different to each other and that there is enough room in this world > for both protocols to co-exist as they currently serve different needs for > different people, and that it okay. > > AT Protocol is clearly not going to disappear, nor is ActivityPub, and we > have a lot more in common than our differences in current architecture. For > instance, the learnings that AT Protocol have had with OAuth are quite > likely the same learnings that we would have with an OAuth for ActivityPub > API, and are similar to the learnings that Solid has had with OIDC/OAuth. > > However, I would also be amiss to not note that the two core dissenting > voices here are also the two people most documented to have been > participating in protocol tribalism with warring, with both being fairly > well documented at this point. That is why I will leave it up to the Social > Web CG Chairs to decide what to do. > > Yours, > Emelia Smith > > On 6 Sep 2025, at 20:31, Ryan Barrett <public@ryanb.org> wrote: > > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 6 September 2025 19:22:22 UTC