Statement on discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol

[how]

Yesterday, @thisismissem posted a Statement on discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol on the SWICG repository, that was removed soon after and moved to its current location pending due diligence and consensus, with the following addition:

Date: 6th September 2025

A community letter on the recent heated discourse about ActivityPub and AT Protocol, co-signed by the people working on or with the respective protocols.

This statement was originally published on the swicg/general repository after I had been granted approval to merge. Since then one community member has claimed that it did not follow the Community Group’s processes, with another who doesn’t regular participate also disagreeing with the statement below, and consequently the document has been taken down. Both of these people have been very vocal in their opposition to AT Protocol existing.

It’s very difficult not to see the ongoing political war at play… I’m chewing on the notion of consensus in the ActivityPub space… Anyway, thank you @thisismissem for the courage to say can’t we all get along and rally a majority of the Fediverse behind this statement for reconciliation.

[aschrijver]

Luckily I missed most if not all of these (apparently overheated) protocol war discussions, and I entirely agree with the sentiment expressed of getting along together. Kudos to @thisismissem → Focus on the social. Build the social web we Need.

Hence, I did just sign the Pull Request in the SWICG repository at:

Activitypub and AT Protocol Discourse statement

The issue I have with the text quoted by @how above, an addition which is not part of the SWICG PR, is that it does seem to me to go against the call to “all get along” together. Not intentional perhaps, but that is how it can be interpreted: as specifically singling out two people for their expressed opinion. Why not phrase just the outcome of the discussion, and refer to the source? Might formulate along the lines of..

This statement was originally published on the swicg/general repository, but is published at this temporary location, until W3C Community Group procedures conclude and the Pull Request can be merged. See the SocialCG mailing list for more background and details.

[thisismissem]

@aschrijver

The issue I have with the text quoted by @how above, an addition which is not part of the SWICG PR, is that it does seem to me to go against the call to “all get along” together. Not intentional perhaps, but that is how it can be interpreted: as specifically singling out two people for their expressed opinion. Why not phrase just the outcome of the discussion, and refer to the source? Might formulate along the lines of..

This statement was originally published on the swicg/general repository, but is published at this temporary location, until W3C Community Group procedures conclude and the Pull Request can be merged. See the SocialCG mailing list for more background and details.

The added text shouldn’t be read as part of the statement, really, but I did need to explain why it was moved, and really the move is because two people known for not liking AT Protocol triggered a process clause, and so far the arguments I’ve seen against the actual contents of the letter haven’t been compelling (mostly they rehash beliefs that one protocol must win).

There’s actually a statement more like that on the link where the statement used to be.

[thisismissem]

@aschrijver I’ve revised the statement at the top whilst updating the signatures list.

[aschrijver]

Hey, that is super! Thank you.