FEP Process - Clarity on positioning: open and inclusive

Standards Fediverse Enhancement Proposals
9

I further clarified my thoughts on the FEP process: 3-Stage Standards Process: Guaranteeing an open and decentralized ecosystem - #40 by aschrijver

In addition with regards to minimizing gatekeeping my thought is that FEP editors shouldn’t be the decider on rejection of a FEP due to its controversial nature. Instead imho a vote should be called. This might either be:

  • A vote on the SocialHub and any member gets a say (and anyone free to join and also vote).
  • A fediverse-wide vote, e.g. via a toot with a poll, or hosted poll that does not require membership.

Repeating the diagram I posted to the Standards Process thread:

1st stage is the decentralized ecosystem, where SocialHub is part of and only facilitates the FEP process, which is the 2nd stage. The FEP informs the W3C who cherry-pick both from the FEP and from the ecosystem. The ecosystem either participates in the FEP or the W3C or both. Only the W3C gives formal guidance. FEP and ecosystem have mixed informative/formal practices
1st stage is the decentralized ecosystem, where SocialHub is part of and only facilitates the FEP process, which is the 2nd stage. The FEP informs the W3C who cherry-pick both from the FEP and from the ecosystem. The ecosystem either participates in the FEP or the W3C or both. Only the W3C gives formal guidance. FEP and ecosystem have mixed informative/formal practices1651×1070 112 KB

1 Like