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:
swicg.github.ioSeek Item
Replying to @smallcircles@social.coop
@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.
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.
Replying to @smallcircles@social.coop
@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.
Replying to @mariusor@metalhead.club
> 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.
Replying to @smallcircles@social.coop
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
Interledger FoundationInterledger Foundation | Interledger Foundation awards $200,000 to Social Web Foundation to support decentralized social mediaThe Interledger Foundation has awarded a $200,000 Grant for the Web to the Social Web Foundation to research sustainable revenue and governance models for decentralized, community-run social platforms, with a focus on creators, publishers, and federated servers.Replying to @silverpill@mitra.social
I was talking specifically about the SWICG. No one has a paid position in the SWICG.
That people earn their living in some way, have a job, are self-employed, receive funding/donations/grants.. well, everyone needs bread on the table, right?
I'd personally not accept funding from Meta, and they are anathema to what fediverse stands for imho.
But that is not the SWICG. It is literally a "community group" where multiple well-known folks from the dev community bring their expertise to, give helping hand with the unthankful chores, very similar to FEP or other ecosystem hotspots.
And collectively we are tasked with bringing fedi to a better place all the time, protect it from harms, and malign corporate influences.
Whether it is ideal or not (I expressed my opinion on this earlier), the W3C as home of the official specs, is part of the ecosystem, and a fractured ecosystem is a weaker one than when it is united and operating as a larger collective.
Replying to @smallcircles@social.coop
@smallcircles @mariusor @evan Bread on the table? Unthankful chores? Please spare me from this bullshit. All SWICG does is reinventing things because otherwise Evan can't take credit for ideas and include this "work" in SWF's annual report.
Replying to @silverpill@mitra.social
@silverpill as one of the people that started this long thread of venting at the SWICG, I have to say that the ad-hominem is taking it a bit too far.
Replying to @mariusor@metalhead.club
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan I am not taking it far enough. The purpose of Social Web groups at W3C is to enrich few people while they are pretending to work on "standards". Others are recruited as useful idiots to legitimize the process and provide free labor.
Are you okay with that?
Replying to @silverpill@mitra.social
@silverpill you are speaking out of your ass in my humble opinion.
Replying to @silverpill@mitra.social
You made your point. It is non-productive. You have a conflict with a person and a whole developer ecosystem fractures and weakens. Other than that it saddens me that people in progressive circles always seem to get so easily into harsh conflict with each other, and we effectively 'divide ourselves to be conquered', while beyond Big Tech thrives and fascism festers unabated. Big Tech bobo's can only smile and think "nothing to fear here".
Replying to @smallcircles@social.coop
@smallcircles @mariusor @evan I think exposing scammers and grifters is very productive. It's not a "conflict".
Replying to @silverpill@mitra.social
All the time you point to 1 person with gross accusations and convict a whole group with all spec authors including Christine. Contributors like Trwnh and ThisIsMissEm, many others. Calling them "useful idiots". That is hot-headed and unproductive.
Did you consider that, being the one who volunteers his time in a custodianship role, also now treats the FEP as his own FOSS project, where you are effectively the BDFL? And that that hurts the credibility of the FEP, making the sole decision to break connection with the SWICG? Deny its role. That connection still existed when you took on the facilitating role. Where is the carried decision to break it?
Being a facilitator means having to deal with many people who all have different motives, strong opinions, get into clashes with each other. And making the best of it. Trying to keep discussions polite and respectful.
Evan and I have different views on the future of the fedi. I don't think he's a Meta puppet.
Replying to @smallcircles@social.coop
@smallcircles @mariusor @evan I didn't say that about other co-authors and contributors - I said that other people are being used without getting much in return. And I'm not treating FEP as my own FOSS project and I am not a "BDFL". You're lying - and it's not the first time.
It's funny how for all the work I do for free I get accused of all sorts of things. But a guy who takes the money from Meta and censors independent research is a hero.
SocialHubGrassroots open standards for fediverse evolutionI can’t know what your intentions are. I am just saying that this narrative you’re constructing helps neither me nor the FEP process. To reiterate: I am not the sole active maintainer of the FEP repository. We try to make it long-term sustainable to the best of our abilities. Also, I would appreciate if you stop tagging me in your posts. I don’t have anything left to say on this topic.
Replying to @mariusor@metalhead.club
@mariusor @silverpill @smallcircles @evan It's not beneath Evan to also use ad-hominem "arguments" to avoid answers either. At this point the tensions are so high that cooperation is a) impossible anyway and b) unwanted by probably both parties.
Replying to @phnt@fluffytail.org
@phnt @evan @mariusor @smallcircles No cooperation was possible from the beginning. The first thing that Evan and co tried to do when they came from Twitter in 2022 is to kill FEP process and SocialHub and set up their lame "alternatives".
Replying to @phnt@fluffytail.org
@phnt I'd say whattaboutism is not a valid defense.
Replying to @mariusor@metalhead.club
I fully agree with that.
Replying to @silverpill@mitra.social
You are playing on a particular person. I reason in the context of overall ecosystem health, and refer to the SWICG where a whole bunch of people participate. Just look at the issue trackers of the various repo's.
Other than that I'll refer to my earlier feedback on the W3C charter repo regarding the grassroots standardization process:
https://github.com/swicg/charters/issues/33#issuecomment-5470092604