take part in Community Group (SocialCG) taskforces
come to joint WG/CG meetings
If you enjoy participating in these, you can ask for a WG invitation.
This W3C Working Group is not intended to make any breaking changes, but rather to finesse the main specs that define interoperation in the fediverse (ActivityPub, ActivityStreams, Activity Vocabulary), by clarifying intended usage, providing examples, etc. Resulting in more of an AP 1.1 than a 2.0 version.
This reply seems entirely out of context. Were you intending to reply to another topic about joining SWF or something? If you were replying to my post about joining the W3C Working Group for updating the ActivityPub standard, please explain the logic underlying your reply.
Let’s say that’s true. Would it be wise to let them define the next official W3C version of AP, without any input or oversight from the rest of the AP dev community? Even when there’s an open invitation to join the WG and have input and oversight?
As far as I’m aware, the only connection between SWF and the WG is @eprodrom 's participation, and the only connection between Meta and the WG is a SWF-associated person is involved, and SWF managed to get some money out Meta once. Your link is to a an announcement about SWF funding from the Interledger Foundation, and calling them a “by scammy crypto companies” is about as fair as making the same accusation against GNU Taler.
Please don’t spread FUD. Especially when it’s so obviously counterproductive to our shared goals as a community.
1. I don't care much about the "official" version of AP. It is outdated and increasingly irrelevant, most of the real development happens elsewhere. 2. Interledger is a part of Ripple/XRP cryptocurrency project, which is a scammy crypto company.
Perhaps not. But any new implementor will, because how are they to know that …
So ensuring that updates to the W3C standard follow that community-led development seems sensible to me, and the invitation is there. Darius Kazemi of Hometown is chairing the WG, and I’m confident that he can do so in a way that keeps the standard evolving in harmony with real-world usage.
Interledger, is payment protocol, developed by the Interledger Foundation. It’s not a cyrotocurrency nor a blockchain. It’s true that the creators were working at Ripple when they created it. But it’s not true to say the Interledger Foundation is a “scammy crypto company”. Therefore, it’s also not true that the donation they made to SWF means that they are funded by a “scammy crypto company”.
Anyway, none of this anti-SWF FUD has anything to do with the AP Working Group. Again, I encourage any fediverse developer with an interest in improving the ActivityPub standard to join the Social CG, and consider asking for invited expert status on the WG.
I note that once again my post been censored for stating facts on SocialHub. While posts by other members spreading blatant misinformation and smearing other members of the fediverse community go unmoderated.
Given that the moderation system here is still being abused in this way, despite the change of admins, and that pretty much all fediverse development discussion has moved elsewhere, I see no option but to abandon this forum again. Most likely for good this time.
I’m sad about this, given the crucial role SH played in fediverse development for many years. But it is what it is. I see no point in flogging a dead horse. I’m out.
After discussing this thread privately with a community member, I logged back in to see if I could find the text of the post which I felt had been censored. I then noticed a link I hadn’t seen the first time to a private message, informing me that I could restore my post my editing it.
I’ve done that. Removed the gentle ribbing about “touching grass”, which was intended to add some levity to the end of the post, and take the sting about of it a bit (nobody likes being corrected on our facts, even when it’s justified). Perhaps this attempt at humour was interpreted as being mean, as is so often the case in a cross-cultural, text-only medium?
I’ll also edit any now to clarify what I meant by "counterproductive’.
Thank you. I also flagged for “don’t spread FUD” which holds the assumption someone is actively spreading it, and easily comes across as an accusation someone is not acting in good faith. Even in cases where such accusation is in order, there are more subtle ways that are more likely to be both on-topic and more constructive.