Post · bonfire.cafe

Post

@virtualpierogi @sri @jsalvador @ben @nlnet

It needs concerted effort, as argued in my blog post, to set all of this up. Things can start small and pragmatic, and then gradually evolve and mature, but we should take care it evolves in the proper direction.

There are trade-offs to consider every step of the way. If there'd more capabilities to introspect the functionality that an #ActivityPub actor offers, it would diminish the need for an upfront design-by-consensus process, but it would increase the complexity of the specifications.

I drew this in a diagram a couple years ago, and transferred it to our social coding forum at: https://discuss.coding.social/t/wiki-grassroots-standardization-processes/672?u=aschrijver

Here you see the fediverse devolve into non-interoperable app-by-app whack-a-mole development, keeping track of all the moving-target #FOSS projects one took a dependency on. Versus the #SolidProject that tries to hammer out full-blown specs upfront, which became a huge package to deal with, with high complexity to implement.

Juanjo Salvador

@jsalvador@mastodon.social · 5 days ago

@sri i made the mistake of reading all the context for this thread... and now I remember why I felt kinda out of ActivityPub. The never-ending fight because protocols, apps, services, whatever.

Pretty sad to see it's all about culture.

Sriram "sri" Ramkrishna - 😼

@sri@mastodon.social · 4 days ago

@jsalvador Right? and many communities have kind of complained about this kind of culture stuff at least for mastodon. But it's sort of a similar thing.

We should be uniting together.

Juanjo Salvador

@jsalvador@mastodon.social · 4 days ago

@sri the tribalism in fediverse is hard to set down, at least with people like that guy who started the thread. But I agree, if we don't join together, we are not going to go far...

🫧 socialcoding..

@smallcircles@social.coop · 4 days ago

@jsalvador @sri

I read the thread but did not give it boost for this reason. But I mentioned it in a blog article I was inspired to write by discussion on our social experience design chatroom, and a fine article by @ben

https://coding.social/blog/shared-ownership/

https://werd.io/growing-the-open-social-web-2/

Social coding commons

Shared responsible social web ownership

We strive for an inclusive social web that is by the people and for the people. But how do we guarantee equity and shared ownership?

Ben Werdmuller

Growing the open social web

A position statement for FediForum's unworkshop

Sriram "sri" Ramkrishna - 😼

@sri@mastodon.social · 4 days ago

@smallcircles @jsalvador @ben These are really great reads. Thanks for sharing.

One thing I've always told our people working on the Linux App Ecosystem is to manage for success. Once you start creating a market, you should assume that you will be co-opted because you've proved that the market worked. It's easy for others to put in the work and jump in with your extraordinary resources and pull people away.

Sriram "sri" Ramkrishna - 😼

@sri@mastodon.social · 4 days ago

@smallcircles @jsalvador @ben

My cousin had some idea about some app related to health care and she was worried about someone stealing the idea. I said nobody is going to take your idea and steal it because they would hold all the risk.

But if you went through with the idea and it makes money that's when people will steal the idea because you took the risk and it panned out and so investors will come in and pay for a competing product if they are locked out of the idea.

1+ more replies (not shown)

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances

Bonfire social · 1.0.2-alpha.32 no JS en

Automatic federation enabled