I find the discussion in FEP-1b12: Group federation very interesting and maybe there’s something cooking that goes beyond the topic of this FEP and would warrant a more specific topic.
I beg to differ here. The “first to market wins” approach is not necessarily the best one. Your statement might be true for the ‘leading’ implementation, but that comes as a hindrance to some functionality, it may be invalid. Maybe an implementation path was chosen for reasons independent of the goal to stick to the specification. Many times people have complained that Mastodon has chosen ways that force others into a path away from the spec. This is part of the reasons why we have this discussion space and the Fediverse Enhancement Proposals process and lively discussion.
If someone comes with a real use-case and a good understanding of the specification that differs from the existing, it might be more work for all now, but the end goal might be better served. Maybe adding support to more open interpretations ends up being less work now than later on. This is all trade-offs, but stating that one way is better than another might end up being a mistake: the collective must evaluate, within the interpretation space, what option offers the most openings to further technological iterations.
The complexity of working in the open and with many different interpretations should not be a burden, as it is the force that makes fediversity possible and desirable.