- From: Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:53:05 -0400
- To: Social Web Incubator Community Group <public-swicg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <fdd717b6-09af-43ba-8de9-982005829ba9@prodromou.name>
Thanks. I also agree with the sentiment of the letter. There are specifics of the letter that I don't agree with and that I think we need to address before publishing. I've marked them with -1s here: https://github.com/swicg/general/pull/48/files/caeb2a894fdabc0ebfbcc99d75d6283296ede7e7 I'm happy to contribute however I can to resolving these issues, getting to consensus and getting a letter published. Evan On 2025-09-06 3:22 p.m., Dmitri Zagidulin 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 Wednesday, 10 September 2025 17:53:19 UTC