Replying to @mariusor@metalhead.club
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 :(
🫧 Social coding commons@smallcircles@social.coopHaving looked in more detail at the #SWICG document. That's not the 3-stage process I advocated for at the time, and I agree with you: It will not work. Such top-down formal ceremony just does not fit a grassroots ecosystem.
Generally speaking I don't think #W3C as a standardization body is up to the task of being a good host for the ActivityPub specification. It is a) not organized for our environment, and b) only takes care of the technical aspects. Our social media landscape has a huge social component, and this is wholly underrepresented in our app-centric fediverse, where people are merely "users" and #FOSS culture is the only driving force.
Today I think SWICG should focus on the 'Protocol implementer' stakeholder: How can they offer compliant #ActivityPub protocol implementations.
Then #FEP can focus on the 'Solution developer', relieved from the plumbing: What interoperable designs do they use to serve the needs of participants on the social network.