In the last meetings, the group was able to debate and resolve a number of points, we long wanted to speak about.
The last meeting was very productive about Capability Negotiation and the Discovery of features …
However, there are some points remaining and let’s list them here
Official fediverse account (some days ago made web for rC3)
fediverse.space
@how asked “Is there a way to communicate to W3C that promoting decentralization and using Microsoft services are antithetical?” /me added “and using google captcha and putting forms what a computer thinks we do and not giving the community space and getting EFF back in the boat and …”
As far as I know, the 2021-02-20 meeting did not happen, correct me if I’m wrong, it would be
Fediverse Futures
AFAIK the Fediverse Futures group has not been followed-up on.
It did not get a lot of response, and no group was formed, but I’ve been steadfastly adding content, and inviting people (technologists and otherwise) with broader background to the SocialHub as described in About the Fediverse Futures category with “We need a more holistic approach to fedi development and evolution.”. I’ve also created a non-technical companion brainstorming space (dogfooding fedi apps): Fediverse Futures is now on Lemmy 😃
Though a dedicated group would be nice, it is not especially needed atm, especially since there’s so much other community work that needs attention. It can always be created at a later date.
Capability Negotation
I thought I wrote some feedback on this, but can’t find it now…
Spec conformance is meaningless if it does not take the semantics into account. Your as:Offer may be something else entirely than my as:Offer. Therefore I think @grishka’s Compliance Profiles would be essential to interpret that context. Didn’t see that in the meeting notes, so that may be discussed in a follow-up meeting, or a forum topic?
In addition to points mentioned I’ve been focusing on Organizing for SocialHub Community Empowerment to address the tons of community work that’s not done, and where people lack the time or incentives to do them
Am preparing a PoC website to accompany this, which’ll be at fedi.foundation with code at (not yet available):
Will follow-up on the empowerment topic in due time. If there’s no interest for this I’ll repurpose the site, or turn it into a personal initiative. Here’s a preliminary screenshot:
I see. The above waitlist is only what people at last and elder meetings requested.
There is also no particular order.
But maybe it would just good to invite people at the meeting to Lemmy and give an overview.
Well, it is a wiki and sure, we did not get done with it and it needs a follow up but the meeting was 20 minutes overtime and then the server somehow had a break anyway.
About semantics: So much is in the protocol - so we need to cover the semantics for the Capability, right?
For now it takes semantics into account in the sense of the protocol answering the question
“Which Actor can do which Action for which Objecttype” …
Now, about Offer the spec. says
“ Indicates that the actor is offering the object . If specified, the target indicates the entity to which the object is being offered.”
So it answers “Who offers what to which?”
Per spec. we can add these semantic meanings
Extending Who by attributedTo (authors, contributors) or generator (underlying software) Where location When published, updated - and - startTime, endTime, duration How instrument within the context context resulting in result
and attach attachment
that is much to describe your Offer but my application wants to know first:
“Do you accept a capability to” Offer this typeof Object by this my Actor to your Actor …
The page design looks supernice !!!
I have one very minimal suggestion, give the byline points “Community empowerment • Cooperation” some more space between the text and bullet. And what would be supersick: If the bullets would have the shape of the F/E/D/I “boxes”
And then, one thing to share: Personally, I like pink on black very much but want to share 1 feedback about the AP Conf website, which comes from an open autistic person saying here that it is bad and so the person used the alternating theme
This is not criticism, let’s just all care about accessibility.
In theory vocabulary extension namespaces already give a clue as to the interpretation of the semantics. In practice this is not enough, especially if you get larger applications that combine many different vocabularies. Also the ActivityStreams specification can be seen as a generic library of social networking primitives, where it is more likely that they are used with different meanings.
In current Fediverse in most cases it is still easy figure out what to support or not:
A microblogging app can safely ignore an Offer{TicketDependency}
And it is very unlikely that this app even receives such message
In more versatile apps and more complex interoperability designs, things start to break down without good negotiation. Fictitious example (not saying that either of these has the optimal design):
Offer{Document} → Person: Webshop offering a product rebate (ECommerce domain)
Here a Compliance Profile, even if it were just a simple string property in NodeInfo and an accompanying FEP describing what it entails, would already be of great help.
Fedi foundation site
Great feedback. I did not give much attention to accessibility yet, but that needs to be addressed. I also got feedback from a fellow member with ADHD at Humane Tech Community that many sites with their bright colors are completely overwhelming to Neurodiverse people.
