Comment on Statement on discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol by W3C SocialCG
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The statement has been… uh… updated. The URL now reads:
A statement was originally published here, however, we have since received an objections to its publication citing that proper processes were not followed, and therefore it has been taken down and republished on Emelia’s website instead, whilst we seek community group consensus. When Emelia merged the pull request, she had been granted permission to do so by the co-chair of the Social Web CG, and given the number of signatories with various significant contributions to ActivityPub and ActivityStreams, Emelia believed that there was enough agreement to publish.
It was pretty bizarre how it was published in such a way that it seemed to come from w3c socialcg when really it was just Emelia.
Despite being an activitypub dev I have not seen any of the supposed "heated discussions" probably because I don't spend time on Mastodon trying to boost ATProto. It doesn't seem like a widespread problem to me.
It was signed by a number of people, including OG ActivityPub contributors. I guess you’d have to know what goes on in the mailing list.
Looking around here, there’s a lot of ignorant hostility. I am always surprised by how tech-illiterate fediverse fans are. People who feel that that’s their peer group probably have a hard time ignoring that background toxicity.
flamingos@feddit.uk 1 week ago
I wonder what objections there could to the statement other than procedural. It’s a nice ‘let’s work on making stuff better rather than fighting with each other’ message.