@silverpill @raphaelRaphael Lullis @julian @mariusormarius

Yes, I agree. Though I would rather see a generic server having much less functionality than a Mastodon API exposes, since much of that is app-specific, Microblogging domain already. The generic server should make Mastodon possible as a solution design modeled on top of its networking layer.

In such a way where we can finally consider the protocol layer to be robust, and are able to treat it as a black box, and are not confronted with all its implementation details when we are doing a solution design.

I think we are probably on the same page, but..

> If you want to go beyond Mastodon API capabilities, you need a truly generic server. Something akin to Nostr relay.

This I would reformulate as:

"If you want to go beyond an app-centric fediverse bound to a Microblogging domain, then you need a generic server conformant to the ActivityPub specification."

Which also indicates I think we need to aggregate puzzle pieces into an AP 2.0

@silverpill @raphaelRaphael Lullis @julian @mariusormarius

Btw, damn we should've caused this entire discussion thread to somehow flow to to have it in the archives. Instead of on "now you see me, now you don't" channel. Peekaboo. ๐Ÿซฃ

social.coop/@smallcircles/1161

Here today, gone tomorrow, who made notes? The post-facto interoperability leaders did. Those who happened to be around at the right time to hear things being said on the grapevine.

We need a proper Grassroots standardization process, and a Grassroots open standard that is able to healthily evolve. The good organization of this is just as important as the technical robustness of the protocol, which is the solution artifact at the end of the open standards cocreation pipeline.

0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://social.coop/users/smallcircles/statuses/116144768714209852 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)