@jwildeboerJan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: @foxFox Ritch :fjoxicon:πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ @raphaelRaphael Lullis @julian @mariusormarius

No, not necessarily. The idea of the Grassroots open standard is that it allows an ecosystem that can evolve. That AP 2.0 artifact can be informal, and gradually adopted in W3C tracks, which I have always been advocating for with the 3-stage bottom-up standardization process in the past.

Other than that I am musing about a different approach, which is Protosocial, an AP extension that is 1.0 compliant. Yet not compliant to the protocol decay and tech debt ridden fediverse that grew by post-facto interop over time.

social.coop/@smallcircles/1161

@jwildeboerJan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:

Besides falling in the thread by context collapse with an unsubstantive remark (which I don't blame you for, as such is the nature of this communication medium), I've been posting extensively on some of the wicked challenges we must overcome, and which determine the future(s) of the fediverse(s) we have today. There is a lot to ponder about. It is not all technical in nature, and I'd argue our problems are more on the social side of things even.

An open standard is a technical artifact. The reason why someone creates the next standard, is a social one. Coding is social.

What is very remarkable is that on a poll asking fedizens about their social experience, and discussing deeper issues in the various subthreads, not any of the developers are mingling in.

This shows more than anything to me the app-centric nature of the fediverse, and how it evolves in a pure technosphere where app devs are in charge, the rest are users.

@foxFox Ritch :fjoxicon:πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ @raphaelRaphael Lullis @julian @mariusormarius

0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://social.coop/users/smallcircles/statuses/116169276388254203 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)