Re: Statement

so 6. 9. 2025 v 22:17 odesílatel emelia <emelia@brandedcode.com> napsal:

> 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.
>

LGTM (though there is one slight typo in ActivityPub).  I did get a private
enquiry from a CG member asking more about the context.  From the feedback
this link was quoted:

https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/29/mastodon-says-it-doesnt-have-the-means-to-comply-with-age-verification-laws/

I confess I have not been following the specific threads on fedi, but if
there's valuable context, I know at least a couple of people would be happy
to read more on the topic.

Thanks Emelia for breaking new ground in terms of diversity and inclusion,
it is very much appreciated!


>
> 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 (
>    @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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>