infinite love ⴳ
activitypub as an ecosystem has no authority like the xmmp standards foundation, which tends to lead toward a "fuck around and find out" approach. planning on extending the spec? just do it this is a really bad way to make standards imo, and i'm not sure the "fedi enhancement proposal" thing is a significant improvement because they lack any sort of authority. everything is really just best-effort 3 comments
infinite love ⴳ
@reiver well in a sense the w3c socialcg could have been this, but that's basically disbanded on account of nothing to discuss the xsf (for xmpp) has a decent model going on, and i can't really find much to critique about it except that you end up having to read a lot of xeps to get basic functionality working. recently they have started doing "compatibility profiles" every year and that's maybe a better more easily digestible approach
infinite love ⴳ
@reiver like, activitypub could have been a "living standard" maybe, like html5? the w3c as a steward of the activitypub spec basically abdicated its authority though, so actually getting any changes to the wording of the spec is nigh impossible the real issue is there's no affirmation or confirmation you're doing anything the "right" or "correct" way, in a way that everyone agrees upon, until you do things the "wrong" way and other implementers complain about it |
Gregory's Server
@trwnh
Do you envision your hypothetical ActivityPub "authority" as being comprised of the software developers who actually create the software that make up the Fediverse?
https://github.com/reiver/fediverse-0
Or do you envision your hypothetical ActivityPub "authority" structured differently?