A poll might be interesting at this point …
- Social Hub community should dedicate to Social Web
- Social Hub community should dedicate to AS/AP
0
voters
You might get different results if you slightly edited the poll to ask what socialhub.activitypub.rocks should be dedicated to 
I think the more interesting question is what the Social Web Community Group at W3C should be dedicated to, particularly since it created this document in 2017 to outline the linkages between all the protocols it works on, not just AS/AP 
It’s also worth mentioning that the activitypub.rocks domain is controlled (at least in theory?) by the CG, which is spinning up a taskforce to give all its domains and subdomains a bit of a refresh in the coming months. Perhaps it’s worth considering how the protocols outlined above, as well as SW protocols not based on open standards governed by W3C, should be discussed here?
(Moved over when the poll itself was moved)
1 Like
Please ad an option: “none of the above” as this would help to mediate the mess #KISS
Would be less polarising.
Having just spent days (weeks? months?) arguing that things are not technically part of the fediverse, I just voted for Social Web.
You see, although I am (I was recently told) a “protocol supremacist”, because I think there needs to be a social web standard that allows people to use one ID across all social web services (just like we can use one browser to view all websites), I’m not committed to AP uber alles. I have no opinions about what the best protocol might be for this purpose, as long as we can get a representative sample of implementers in a room, and find consensus on which one to use at any given time.
Obviously AP/AS will remain the centre of gravity in this forum for the foreseeable. But I see no reason to exclude discussion about other protocols. Indeed, if we are to gradually work towards broader interop across the social web (and I’d like to), it might help to have people from other projects here to talk to about what that might look like.
2 Likes
I think that is a good stance. The old feneas.org organization was multi-protocol oriented. But even at activitypub.rocks Christine refers to the original multi-protocol scoped SocialCG or “Social Web Incubator Community Group”.
Social CG, a W3C Community Group to continue the work of advancing the federated social web… including ActivityPub!
Having the health and future, the vibrant evolution of the Social Web as scope means investing collective time and effort there where it gives the best outcome. With AS/AP uptake and adoption it is logically a central pillar. But it isn’t the only pillar that can carry the vision of the Social Web.
2 Likes
It is really a follow-up question. The poll is about general scope. If there’s a preference on that it may be better to see that reflected in the domain name.
An option might be to host the forum under the domain of fedi.foundation, which stands for “Federated Diversity Foundation” and ‘foundation’ is in the meaning of “the basis upon which we stand” and not an incorporated non-profit.
But that is premature too. We first need to determine if there’s ANY willingness for the Commons to keep the initiative and control of their own fate. In other words can we in this chaotic grassroots movement manage to get any decent kind of organization and process going, that can stop corporations from taking over the reigns completely.
(PS. Positioning as “Federated Diversity Foundation” would be a good start to make significant diversity improvements and structurally address serious concerns like those touted by @jdp23. But a precondition is that there’s interest to form a Community of Action and go beyond just-a-forum for random posts.)
I discussed with @how about this matter. And we decided that we aren’t in a hurry to make any quick decision (impossible anyway since community consensus is needed). Instead in the upcoming OFFDEM unconference a Fediverse track might be prepared.
Yes it is interesting. Though I guess that is a discussion best held in the W3C mailing list.
For this unfortunate turn of events I just concluded my thoughts on the matter.
1 Like
There are a few different aspects of diversity that could be in scope for this:
- Diversity of protocols
- Diversity of implementations (to counter corporatization and big-get-bigger dynamics)
- Demographic diversity
My first reaction is that something with “diversity” in the name will only work unless it’s at least somewhat demographically diverse in some key dimensions (race, gender (including trans femmes, trans mascs, non-binary people, etc), geography, disability, age, etc) and their intersections – and everybody involved committed to steadily improving things and creating an inclusive environment.
I’m not sure how to get there from where things are on SocialHub today but it’s certainly an interesting thought exercise that could have benefits no matter what you wind up calling it, so I’d encourage people to explore that. As you say though it’s an open question whether there’s interest.
2 Likes
Yes, totally agree. Being “open to anyone” has shown to be not enough. More outreach is needed, and that requires folks stepping up. Here goes that anyone can be facilitated and take initiative. At the lowest ambition level we have “Just A Forum”. But we also have a DoOcracy (which I’d summarize to simply mean “pick up any task you want, and then steer it to completion”) and with that there can be as much as there’s willingness to build.
WebID? IndieAuth? FedCM? 
1 Like
If you don’t have an opinion, why are you voting?
To be honest, I don’t understand what is the purpose of this poll. SocialHub is a forum for ActivityPub developers, the About page says it very clearly, and the domain name is ActivityPub.Rocks. We use it for work.
And, now, all of a sudden, this forum is about “Social Web”? I don’t even know what that means.
@how Could you explain what is going on?
2 Likes
If he added “none of the above” as an option, these polls would make more sense to me.
Well to be fair it also says “to make the Fediverse a great space for cooperation” and as was discussed elsewhere, the fediverse is not just ActivityPub according to some people at least. So focusing solely on ActivityPub might not be the right goal.
Personally, I feel no specific loyalty or connection to ActivityPub as a protocol (in fact I think it is unsuited/bad in some aspects). I only feel a connection to some places on the fediverse. If we can use SocialHub to work towards an ActivityPub successor, I don’t think that should be excluded just because it is not “ActivityPub proper”.
1 Like
i think the scope that makes sense is more like “what are you building with as2/ap” and not just strictly the specs themselves. this probably tangentially includes “fediverse” topics and if someone wanted to build “social web” stuff on top of activitypub then they’re probably fine here.
aside from that i don’t think the question really makes sense. many forums have an “offtopic” category which can be used to discuss things which aren’t strictly activitypub. so if someone wanted to discuss for example some interesting approach from another distributed/decentralized protocol then i don’t see a reason to chase them off. but maybe something like discussing sports games or tabletop rpgs is better suited to some other forum.
3 Likes
Fediverse is not just ActivityPub, but ActivityPub is the only protocol in Fediverse that is still rapidly evolving. I’m fine with Fediverse, actually, but I don’t see what else we could be focusing on, if not ActivityPub.
@silverpill, nothing changed in SocialHub forum. This is merely a discussion topic like any other.
The poll is just my conversation starter. I am personally curious how people answer.
I am sorry @hamishcampbell, I made the poll deliberately vague. Just as vague as the terms in its binary choice, namely “AS/AP” and “Social Web”. Third option “other” is an implicit “discuss below”.
My curiosity relates to recent passionate discussions. Among others about definitions and positioning of our ecosystem. And also to premature plans to change the website under which SocialHub is hosted. Two developments where SocialHub was not involved beforehand.
What is in flux and changing is the ecosystem around us. In this light it is best to reformulate your question…
What Is SocialHub About ?
This entirely depends on everyone’s engagement in discussions and DoOcracy. Without that SocialHub will be archive.org material. I created another thread to discuss people’s engagement…
Engage, participate, volunteer … Social Web: Our Way Or The Highway?
You directed this question to @how, but what SocialHub is, is a collective question. I can say that IMHO it isn’t what is written down in the About-page years ago, because that would be silly in an ecosystem that is so much in flux. An ecosystem where stakeholders position themselves based on current needs they perceive, and in relation to other players.
That is a very favorable reading. But I guess it depends yet again about definitions you give to things. I would formulate this differently:
- The ActivityPub-based ecosystem is evolving rapidly.
- ActivityPub’s open standards were stalled for years.
- ActivityPub specs suffer protocol decay and tech debt.
Both SocialHub and SocialCG are among a host of parties that try hard and attempt to evolve the ecosystem, while many forces are devolving the ecosystem. That is my opinion.
What we can do here at SocialHub is analyze these forces, see how we can better position this community to tackle them, and let that determine our mission and vision, and also our call to action, our rallying cry… because without active contributors all one can do here is Just Talk™ 
OFFDEM Fediverse track?
@how, you might add more information about the upcoming OFFDEM and a possible Fediverse track to be organized there?
2 Likes
A lot of what I’m tempted to say here I’ve already expounded on at length, most recently in the discussion on the SWF and some of the threads that have branched off it. So I’ll confine myself to answering some direct questions asked of me here, and a couple of other things that impact on projects I’m involved in.
As I said in the post you’re replying to…
A detailed answer to your question is well beyond the scope of this discussion. It’s one of many to be answered by implementers, as part of a structured standards process. I’m agnostic on where and how this should happen, again, that’s up to implementers. Because as I said to @SorteKanin a few days ago, there’s no point writing “standards” that only the author will ever use. Technical standards creation is, for better or for worse, a political process.
If I can find the funding I’m looking for so the Bridge Seat team can take over stewardship of the Takahē project (funding ideas welcome), I’ll have skin in the game. So you might start to hear more of my opinions on things like these. But it won’t be in this thread.
I’m not sure how I’m supposed to interpret this. I clearly have an opinion on the topic of the poll, because it was right there in the comment you replied to. Intentionally replying out of context seems like a veiled way of saying “quiet in the cheap seats”. Which I don’t appreciate, and it’s a fools errand anyway. After all these years it’s pretty clear there’s no shutting me up, for better or for worse 
That’s news to me. I’ve been a member of this forum since before it was on this subdomain. Before AP was published, if I remember rightly. In my experience SocialHub is, and has always been, a fediverse developers forum.
You have a point though, we are under an AP-specific domain. Perhaps, as @aschrijver says, it’s time to think about moving the forum to a more generic domain name, to reflect the broader purpose it clearly has? But we’ve done find pursuing a broader mission using the current subdomain, so I see no reason to think we can’t continue as we are.
There’s lots of discussion here about cross-project Use Xperience, and the pros and cons of things like bridging, as well as non-technical issues that affect the future of fediverse development. I find that valuable.
If you think there’s a need for a forum limited to technical discussion among AP implementers, perhaps you need to contact the SWF about hosting one? I’m pretty sure they’d be keen to support that (a test case for forum federation?).
If the majority agree with the scope as you see it, I guess I’ll need to start looking for a new home for the Fediversity category. I asked to have that category hosted here, instead of various other options, because I saw this as the most inclusive fediverse developers forum. I hope I was right about that.
For the record, the Fediversity category was intended for discussion among people who run references sites about the fediverse; instance mapping portals, server choosers, use guides like fedi.tips, and software guides like fediverse.party and delightful.club. As well as discussions about things like Use eXperience design. The timing of getting it created meant it hasn’t really achieved that purpose yet, but there’s clearly a need. I suppose you could say we build “social web” stuff on top of AP (to paraphrase @trwnh), but that’s a stretch.