idk where to really put this (might turn into a blog post later or something). it’s what you might call a “hot take”, certainly a heterodox one to some parts of the broader #fediverse community. this is in response to recent discussion on “what do you want to see from AP/AS2 specs” (in context of wg rechartering) mostly devolving into people complaining about JSON-LD and extensibility, some even about namespacing in general (there was a suggestion to use UUID vocab terms. i’m not joking)

1/?

    • Michael T. Bacon, Ph.D.@social.coop
      0·
      3 months ago

      @trwnh

      I want fedi folks to start thinking about commons instead of getting hung up on stuff that’s basically warmed over “the cathedral and the bazaar.”

      All functional commons involve inclusion and exclusion. They are neither purely closed nor open. They are variously open or closed depending on the combination of who you are and what you want to do.

        • infinite love ⴳ@mastodon.socialOP
          1·
          3 months ago

          @[email protected] In other words, a “protocol” needs to know everything there is to know, and it is undesirable to have unknowns. Contrast with the viewpoint that it’s perfectly fine to have unknowns, and in fact, you can expect unknowns by default. You’ll never have a complete view of the universe.

          • Michael T. Bacon, Ph.D.@social.coop
            1·
            3 months ago

            @[email protected]

            In that regard, I have to say that I think I’m still in a little bit of a grey area. The power of AP is in the fact that it can socialize a wide range of things, and I don’t think that world should be closed in advanced.

            At the same time, a protocol needs a set of sub-standards at least (lots of old IETF protocols had CAPABILITY commands) that let you figure out which specific closed world you’re operating in.

            • infinite love ⴳ@mastodon.socialOP
              1·
              3 months ago

              @[email protected] i’m rotating in my head the idea of a FEP that defines a conformance profile for a “social networking profile” that basically formalizes what you’d need to implement a “fediverse network”, basically as a superset of AS2+AP (because AP is not enough on its own, it says nothing about message shapes or how to interpret specific props in a social network setting)

              • infinite love ⴳ@mastodon.socialOP
                1·
                3 months ago

                @[email protected] actually my main reservations about it are like

                • how much do i base it off of current practices, and how much do i base it off of correct practices?
                • is it worth the effort? is any project going to be on board with it?
                • no really, is it worth the effort? should i be putting that effort into doing the better thing from the start?
                • Michael T. Bacon, Ph.D.@social.coop
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  @[email protected]

                  If I can give unsolicited advice on nebulous question . . . ;)

                  • If it’s going to get to correct practices, there has to be a bridge to get there from current practices. Nothing will make a big jump without a transition process.
                  • It’s not worth the effort if you do it alone, because no one else will be invested in it.

                  Those may be totally useless or non-sequitur to your actual concerns. Wouldn’t be the first time in this thread alone I misunderstood!