I just read your docs on handling C2S collections, and just thought to drop you the link to the SeekItem draft that @evan has created. Dunno if its relevant to you, so just FYI:
6
Replies
0
Boosts
@smallcircles my personal feeling towards specifications that introduce bespoke APIs for a one purpose functionality that can be already done is that they're misplaced effort.
@evan, or the SWICG, have a tendency to ignore previous art when they come up with these random specifications. That document of mine you linked to was actually turned into FEP-6606, so it's as visible as anything would be to the SWICG.
I already argued enough about the media upload end point that I don't have the energy to drop what I'm working on and jump on the mailing list and IRC to draft and present a coherent case for why I think they are bad.
Oh, it is great that that is turned into a #FEP. Thank you!
Other than that - even though I have thoughts on the current standardization process and the role of the SWICG (see quote) - I don't think your critique of SWICG is fair in this case. The SeekItem is still just an unofficial draft by Evan, as 'random' as anything that happens in the developer ecosystem, and the SWICG is explicitly seeking feedback from the AP developer community to improve these specs so they gain broader buy-in and adoption. In that regard it is no different than proposing a FEP, I guess?
But I understand your point about energy and all that. Am running on low-bat myself in that regard :(
@smallcircles I might be off base here, but from where I'm standing, when they embark on their roles, their primary mission becomes to keep track of what's happening in the community.
It's their job to read all the FEPs that are relevant to a particular piece of functionality they're discussing. Sure, the FEPs might not be useful, but IMHO they need to include references that they did their due diligence.
As a community member I can offer my thoughts if asked for, but I think it's unreasonable that it's me that needs to keep track of everything they're working on, and take time out of my own stuff to author feedback unprompted.
> Their primary mission becomes to keep track of what's happening in the community.
I agree on that, partially. It goes both ways, to the benefit of everyone. The folks at the SWICG are also just volunteering their time as participants in the same developer ecosystem. A bit of giving and a bit of taking is needed.
That said, we have a bottom-up standardization process, not a top-down hyper-formal one that is more appropriate for creating corporate industry standards. And the SWICG tends to the latter, which is imho a flaw and mistake similar to how Solid project operates, and fails to reach their community.
Fediverse evolution is community-driven first and foremost.
The folks at the SWICG are also just volunteering their time as participants in the same developer ecosystem. A bit of giving and a bit of taking is needed.
Does this look like volunteering to you?
How about this? Did you know Meta is paying them?
https://socialwebfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/SWF-Annual-Report-2025.pdf
Oh, it is great that that is turned into a #FEP. Thank you!
Other than that - even though I have thoughts on the current standardization process and the role of the SWICG (see quote) - I don't think your critique of SWICG is fair in this case. The SeekItem is still just an unofficial draft by Evan, as 'random' as anything that happens in the developer ecosystem, and the SWICG is explicitly seeking feedback from the AP developer community to improve these specs so they gain broader buy-in and adoption. In that regard it is no different than proposing a FEP, I guess?
But I understand your point about energy and all that. Am running on low-bat myself in that regard :(
