silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social

The ap-next developer guide was removed from the https://activitypub.rocks website: https://github.com/swicg/activitypub.rocks/issues/63 (by the father of the Fediverse, no less).

The reason:

It's a fork outside the SocialCG.

This is utter nonsense. The guide refers to the original ActivityPub specification and even to SocialCG reports covering Webfinger and HTTP signatures. The other ap-next project is NomadPub - a collection of FEPs that significantly expand the capabilities of the protocol but don't diverge from the original spec.

However, since dissenting opinions about the present and the future of ActivityPub are now openly censored, a fork may indeed be necessary.

Summary card of repository ap-next/ap-next, described as: ActivityPub NextCodeberg.orgap-next/guide.md at mainap-next - ActivityPub Next
elle@elle@weathered-steel.social

Replying to @⁨silverpill@mitra.social⁩

@silverpill it does seem weird they would use that justification to remove the link. thought at first they might be consolidating for W3C-only resources, but there are non-W3C guides under the `Documentation` section (which is where I would guess the `ap-next` guide would also fit).

outside of clarifying underspecified pieces of the protocol, and highlighting some useful FEPs, how is the `ap-next` guide a "fork"?

silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social

Replying to @⁨rimu@mastodon.nzoss.nz⁩

@rimu @elle I think the real reason is the association with another thing I am working on: nomadic identity. Some people don't like it, although it is not clear why. It is an optional protocol extension, and similar features in ATProto protocol don't cause any controversy.

When working on ActivityPub, a major goal for me was making sure that the protocol wasn't so HTTP-based that we couldn't add content-addressing. So I believe this is possible to add in a spec compa...GitHubContent-addressed ActivityPub messages · Issue #573 · w3c/activitypubWhen working on ActivityPub, a major goal for me was making sure that the protocol wasn't so HTTP-based that we couldn't add content-addressing. So I believe this is possible to add in a spec compa...by cwebber
Jupiter Rowland@jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.eu

Replying to @⁨silverpill@mitra.social⁩

@silverpill @Rimu @elle I could come up with a bunch of conspiracy theories for this behaviour.

Enforcement of Mastodon dominance.

A front against Mike Macgirvin, inventor of the most "disruptive" Fediverse software from a Mastodon point of view, as well as all his creations and inventions.

Forcing a grass-roots development under corporate control and eradicating the grass-roots part. Essentially "embrace-extend-extinguish", but trying desperately to speed-run the "embrace" and "extend" parts to cut to the "extinguish" part as quickly as possible.

The only way this could possibly fail is if Mastodon decided not to play along because more people consider Mastodon the ActivityPub reference implementation and Fediverse gold standard than not.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #ActivityPub
🫧 Social coding commons@smallcircles@social.coop

Replying to @⁨jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.eu⁩

@jupiter_rowland @silverpill

What I have seen during the years (but it may be from before my fedi entry in 2018) in my perception there never was something you can describe as a "front against Mike".

I think what is more the case is that there are particular social dynamics at work in the fediverse developer ecosystem, whereby Mike's work didn't find the adoption it deserved, for a whole host of reasons determined by these dynamics. "Build it and they will come" is for instance a risky assumption, without advocacy.

More independent of what Mike does..

That what the fediverse is, and does, and can be.. It is all in the eye of the beholder. Each person has different interpretations and expectations. There's no consensus. But worse. Fediverse is seen as a pure technoverse, an open technology landscape to freely exploit.

In that light Mastodon is a platform, a product, a brand. Fully focused to be successful.. for Mastodon. Not for the fediverse per se.

social.coop/@smallcircles/1171

🫧 Social coding commons@smallcircles@social.coop

@kim @evan

For Social experience design (SX) I use this simple notion of a sociosphere and a technosphere, where the latter should support and help satisfy the needs in the former.

An observation is that in society, generally speaking, we give too much credence to the technosphere, take innovation-equals-progress as a given, to which we must subsequently adapt ourselves. We tend to turn things around, where "digital transformation" suddenly means how humans must adapt their lives to new technology that comes to disrupt it.

The poll is phrased in the technosphere. In the sociosphere my publications should simply reach their intended audience.

By whatever technical means are most appropriate for that.

In the technosphere 'fediverse' is just a category word according to SX. In the sociosphere we are modeling prosocial solutions, and things boil down to specific social networking requirements in our solution design, that satisfy particular stakeholders' needs.

social.coop/@smallcircles/1169

en
dimkr@dimkr@didkey.000090000.xyz

Replying to @⁨smallcircles@social.coop⁩

@smallcircles @silverpill @rimu Maybe it's time to actually fork ActivityPub? Write a single, accurate, unambiguous FEP that describe a "baseline" of how ActivityPub is actually understood and implemented (with links to all "adjucent" documents - cavage, etc'), call it 'fedi protocol', note it's Mastodon-compatible, then 'rebase' all FEPs on top of it as 'extensions' of the base?