So, with big parties making entry to the Fediverse, things are accelerating significantly. Without going into the particulars we all know from the ways that big corporations conduct business, as well their involvement in standards processes, that this holds risks to the particular ecosystem of the Fediverse.
Until now we are in the rather unique situation where the Commons, a grassroots movement, managed to create open standards and a thriving ecosystem. Through many years of slow evolution it has led to formation of a unique culture, values and an ‘early-web’ kind of vibe.
All that is now on the line, unless we manage and mitigate the risks involved with mainstreaming of the Fediverse, and ongoing trend of corporate entries and big players carving out their niche.
I proposed this idea for a 3-stage bottom-up Standards Process about 3 months ago, as a means to guarantee an open ecosystem. Many positive reactions I’ve since received, including yours above, @codenamedmitri.
How do we give this proposal further arms and legs?
My own position on the Fediverse is explicitly focused on the SocialHub dev community and advocacy towards the ecosystem. As such I am deliberately not involving myself with W3C SocialCG for the most part. If the 3-stage process works, people shouldn’t be member of SocialCG and still be able to see their contributions to the Fediverse permeate upwards through Ecosystem → FEP/SocialHub → W3C CG/WG.
The SocialCG page mentions:
Discussions and meeting announcements happen on the SocialHub forum or on project-specific version control repositories.
If we have an integrated 3-stage Standards Process, this proposal here should be enough to get back a “Proposal acknowledged. This is an agenda item of the SocialCG” and efffectively delegate that decision-making.
And if approved, then the 3-stage process should be made real, i.e. integrating/interfacing, removing overlap, formalizing/documenting the relationships.
Lastly, tangentially related, I want to give a shout out to @j12t 
It is laudable how you took the time to inform the community, as far as restrictions allowed, on the meeting organized 8 December by Meta. Thank you! I saw a toot thread this morning by Jason Velazquez how such meetings can be part of deliberate Divide and Rule strategy.
I’ll quote for the Nth time the following:
“Any decentralized [ecosystem] requires a centralized substrate, and the more decentralized the approach is the more important it is that you can count on the underlying system.”
“Substrate formation” (organizing people and processes) in our grassroots ecosystem is more important than ever. The individualism and focus only on own projects led to organic evolution that was likely important factor to the unique culture we fostered and gave some resilience too. But right now if people don’t step up and collaborate beyond their own initiative, then a corporate takeover is a given.