- From: Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
- Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2025 17:17:23 -0400
- To: Social Web Incubator Community Group <public-swicg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <af9eb5b0-6537-4e32-add9-e57a1230dd7f@prodromou.name>
I left the meeting right at the one-hour mark because I had another call to go to. We were, I think, adjourned, and the chatter as the call was closing was about including this topic earlier in the agenda at our next meeting. There may have been additional discussion of the topic after that point that I missed, but it doesn't appear to have been minuted. https://hedgedoc.socialweb.coop/IvWdA219RNCZk5u-e4CQkA?view Evan On 2025-09-06 3:41 p.m., nightpool wrote: > I read the minutes of the meeting yesterday, and they're very vague > around the discussion of the statement—no substantial arguments either > for or against the statement were minuted. Would someone be able to > summarize the discussion that took place, and specifically which > discussions this statement is responding to? > > I think the biggest point of confusion to me is the vagueness of this > statement. If it's responding to published articles from well known > public figures, then we should be comfortable responding to them > publicly by name, and pointing out where we think they fall short of > civility. If there aren't, then I don't think the group should be > dignifying what seems to effectively amounts to social media gossip > with such a formal response as this one. > > I also have more ideological concerns with the vagueness of the > statement. Since it takes such a "all approaches are valid" stance on > decentralization, it might be taken as precluding important technical > and social discussion about the relative merits of the protocols and > their practical implementations—for example, the centralization of > Bluesky's PLC identifier system and how the design of account recovery > and Bluesky's key custody makes it easy for governments and non-state > actors like credit card companies to remove users' access to the AT > Protocol network through the single point of legal control. These are > important technical discussions that this group should be able to have > when considering technologies for standardization, and without more > specificity and clarity in our statement I'm worried that it might > have a chilling effect on such discussions. > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2025, 9:58 AM Eugen Rochko <eugen@zeonfederated.com> wrote: > > 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 >> <https://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 21:17:27 UTC