This may be a tongue-in-cheek question, but I would bet that writing a book together here on the SocialHub might be an interesting thing to do. Certainly, the Guide for new ActivityPub implementers would be a chapter, and I’m sure many people here would have interesting things to tell not only about the specifications, but the processes we’ve been building and using here over the years, with all the ups and downs of steering a collective endeavor where everyone likes to disagree with each other, yet keep talking and trying to figure things out for interoperability… That certainly sounds like an internet engineering effort where widely different people gather and find ways to keep sitting at the same table fighting over political views of technical development – oh yes, I can see not everyone likes to talk about politics, until the politics invites itself to your table with heavy boots and a loud voice.
So, instead of just criticizing the funny way the Social Web Foundation appeared with Meta and Threads.net everywhere on it (read Tom Coates telling the founding story, or notice the redundancy of SWF Fediverse presence on its self-hosted instance and on the Master’s service …), let’s do it sideways:
I acknowledge that this is how you feel. But I’m going to gently suggest that you may be reading venom into it that isn’t actually there. Perhaps based on the venom that was present in some of the posts in the thread on SWF, linked at the top of this thread.
My reading of this is that @how is not attacking you for writing the book. But simply using the fact that you did as a jumping off point to propose a collective authoring experiment. Simultaneously acknowledging the messiness of fediverse politics, and the concerns some of us have expressed about Meta’s involvement, and calling on us to move our attention and energy away from attacking what the SWF is doing and towards doing something constructive ourselves.
In most cases I would support this. But in the context of this title, your name is there simply to make it clear which book it refers to. The only way I can think of to comply with your request is to replace “Evan’s ActivityPub book” with the full title of your book, which would make the thread title rather unwieldy.
ActivityPub is the full title. Programming for the fediverse is the subtitle. Replacing “Evan’s ActivityPub book” with “ActivityPub: Programming for the fediverse” would actually not lead to the book itself in a search engine, but to articles about the Fediverse, which is kind of bad marketing by the publisher.
and on the Master’s service 
…), let’s do it sideways: