This discussion is reminding me of a few I’ve had in the past, so I’ll give my two cents here. Cooperation amongst a distributed group of individuals, groups and organisations is inherently tricky. Setting up and facilitating Pavilion (a distributed workers cooperative) and various other online cooperative efforts in the last eight years has given me the odd grey hair.
There is no silver bullet to this. Individual efforts are needed. Collective efforts with consensus are also needed. On balance I think ActivityPub development and standards have probably skewed more in favour of individual efforts, with the FEP process being one reflection of this. I broadly agree with @hamishcampbell’s calls for openness, supportiveness and engagement.
I would suggest that the way to think about this, the way to approach this mentally, is one of “flexible constructiveness”. Efforts like FEP, discussion on this forum, discussions elsewhere, SWICG, and the new Forums and Threaded Discussion Taskforce we just set up, and many other efforts, have to be thought of as complimentary forces rather than alternatives, or in tension with each other. Some things will work in some situations. Others will work in other situations. You have to be ready to adapt to be truly constructive. Searching for the best way to cooperate in these efforts (online and distributed), is an endless quest (I’ve been on a few times). There is no best way.
The biggest problems for collective action are not ideology, bad intent, or even commercial interests (though they can all be factors too). The biggest problems are time and focus. People are busy trying to live and provide for themselves and those they care about. They only have so much time to dedicate to things like this. The privilege of time, and who has it, to engage in collective online efforts is an interesting discussion (perhaps a separate one). This is why it is sometimes necessary to have meetings, so someone can schedule in time to understand what’s actually going on. For the same reasons, it’s also necessary to have a robust async collaboration. Sometimes people can’t, or don’t want to, come to a meeting. Both are needed.
In summary, I would endorse:
- the efforts to improve the FEP process;
- the calls for a supportive and inclusive culture;
and call for a pluralistic approach to both:
- methods of collaboration and norm-setting (i.e. FEP, SWICG etc); and
- the “actors” involved in this collective effort.