- From: Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
- Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2025 17:28:19 -0400
- To: Social Web Incubator Community Group <public-swicg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <e0646915-8db5-4cc9-a929-71465f687006@prodromou.name>
I'll leave it up to the chair. Evan On 2025-09-06 4:15 p.m., emelia wrote: > I think the CfC is the pull request, though you are more than welcome > to post a CfC on the mailing list if you want, but it may fragment the > discussion, which may lead to more confusion. > >> On 6 Sep 2025, at 22:00, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote: >> >> Thanks! Do we need to start a "CfC:" thread here? Or does the PR and >> comments on it suffice? >> >> I'm fine with that personally, but I want to make sure we dot the i's >> and cross the t's. >> >> Evan >> >> On Sep 6, 2025 15:22, Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >> <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 21:28:23 UTC