Conversation

Notices

1. Rushyo 🇪🇺 (rushyo@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Apr-2017 23:25:30 UTC Rushyo 🇪🇺

   Just had a chat with another "technologist" (haha) with decades more experience than me about the ins and outs of Mastodon's issues. From technical to social to federated to individual to admin to dev to moderator. Many hours of discussion of all the elements.

   We agreed that some form of federal moderation committee is likely a must, as is a standards committee (for dev interoperability).

   It's just unsustainable that everyone is essentially communicating primary by shouting over fences.

   • Hallå Kitteh repeated this.
   • Idiot Army of One (superbranch@anti.energy)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Apr-2017 23:32:59 UTC Idiot Army of One

     in reply to

     @Rushyo lol there is a standards committee and standards, why aren't they actually implemented?

     Hallå Kitteh repeated this.
   • Rushyo 🇪🇺 (rushyo@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Apr-2017 23:33:41 UTC Rushyo 🇪🇺

     in reply to

     • Idiot Army of One

     @superbranch Which single spec for this federation do you feel exists?

     Hallå Kitteh likes this.
     Hallå Kitteh repeated this.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 15:59:38 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     in reply to

     • Annah
     It's unclear in this conversation who knows and who doesn't know what, so just to be clear I'm mentioning that https://www.w3.org/community/ostatus/wiki/images/9/93/OStatus_1.0_Draft_2.pdf exists but was never finalized.
     
     The de facto standard is that plus whatever StatusNet had already done by then, and what GS has done since. It would be nice if this were all documented unambiguously and correctly, so that people could evolve the protocol as necessary. @maiyannah is working on this.
     
     However, the W3C has left it behind and are instead working on, and has presented as a Candidate Recommendation, its replacement #ActivityPub.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 19:14:15 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Annah
     @rushyo @maiyannah The protocol has since 2012 slowly been evolved through consensus between various admins and developers. To abandon that would be an enwp.org/Embrace%2C_extend_and_extinguish move.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 21:03:08 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Annah
     @rushyo @maiyannah Belligerence and recklessness are difficult to distinguish, and in the end any distinction doesn't matter. The result is a split federation.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 21:16:28 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Annah
     @rushyo @maiyannah People have been trying to talk to people. But they'd rather innovate than federate.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 21:28:58 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Annah
     • ‭‮ʀᴇᴛᴛɪᴡT‮ 💀
     @rushyo @maiyannah @twitter You're the one who said "Well, that's what the GS folks say is the de-facto standard anyway ;-) :-)" about a protocol that had a handful implementations and a consensus about what was the de facto standard a year ago. I'm saying that people who talk like that are not interested in cooperation. You say you want a standard, but at the same time are saying that half the network can't be part of the new consensus.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 21:30:11 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     in reply to

     • Annah
     • Hallå Kitteh
     • ‭‮ʀᴇᴛᴛɪᴡT‮ 💀
     @maiyannah @rushyo @twitter If Mastodon wants to move fast and break things, that means there can't be one standard.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 21:34:57 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Annah
     • ‭‮ʀᴇᴛᴛɪᴡT‮ 💀
     @rushyo @maiyannah @twitter "what the GS folks think is the current standard" is the current standard. Gargron is making his own judgements about what the OStatus spec means. A spec that was written to codify what StatusNet did.
     
     That's "Nuh-uh, we're building the bridge here. That's where the map says the canyon is." There is no sense in a radical interpretation of the spec, it's a best-effort spec.
     Stephen Michael Kellat likes this.
     Stephen Michael Kellat repeated this.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 21:39:50 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Annah
     • ‭‮ʀᴇᴛᴛɪᴡT‮ 💀
     @rushyo @maiyannah @twitter The goalpost has always been "it's implementation-defined and that's unfortunate, somebody should codify this properly". Starting with doing things differently and deriding people who are describing the terrain is not moving toward defragmentation and standardization.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 21:47:59 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • ‭‮ʀᴇᴛᴛɪᴡT‮ 💀
     @rushyo @twitter The source code is there. That's more than Microsoft ever gave us. And nobody is threatening Masto with lawsuits for trying to implement the protocol. Hardly a bait-and-switch. How come after Friendica and rstat.us tried to be compatible with the existing network, Mastodon can decide what the network should be, before even fully integrating with what's there?
     Stephen Michael Kellat likes this.
     Stephen Michael Kellat repeated this.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 21:54:59 UTC Hallå Kitteh
     @rushyo The existing network is functioning properly with the existing network. Talking about how it can be improved works.
     
     Breaking reposts and expecting everybody else to patch accordingly, breaking conversations and expecting everybody else to work around it in the way Masto chose to do it -- that's not talking. Especially not when saying "that's how I read the spec, the spec allows that". "This is how it is now, forget how it was a year ago" is not the starting point for codifying an organic protocol.
     Stephen Michael Kellat likes this.
     Stephen Michael Kellat repeated this.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 22:13:39 UTC Hallå Kitteh
     @rushyo You are saying that there needs to be talking. When I say that talking works, you say it cannot scale, and that talking doesn't seem to be working.
     
     The "GS Side", reflecting how the existing network works, has tried talking. Eugen has said "no, this is better", creating two mostly by not entirely compatible networks. That's the talking that isn't working.
     
     Fine, code first, experiment with things, but don't say the others aren't open to talking.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 22:21:02 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • maloki
     @maloki @rushyo Being aware that it is an experiment and seeking advice before embarking on the experiment helps later reintegration.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 22:24:52 UTC Hallå Kitteh
     @rushyo I don't understand the "over the fences" analogy. There is a "#social" channel on freenet. maiyannah and others have been active in Masto's issues. We're all on a federated network. We're subtooting Gargron here because he has heard all this before and probably isn't interested in being dragged in.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 22:25:48 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • maloki
     @maloki @rushyo That's fine. But the first step wasn't even tried.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 22:26:49 UTC Hallå Kitteh
     @rushyo Humility on the part of the one who wants to change things up helps.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 22:28:56 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Monsterbater
     @monsterbater @rushyo There is a bee on the network. Maybe we should ask them.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 21-Apr-2017 22:46:35 UTC Hallå Kitteh
     @rushyo What is needed right now is contributors who can get federation up to speed.
     
     Once there is parity, discussions can be had on what features are missing and how they can be added to that common ground in a compatible way. Maybe it should be possible e.g. to somehow ask subscribers (or tell senders) what features they support (like e.g. lightweight reposts).
     
     Or possibly talk about new features is moot and we should all be moving to AP anyway. But the existing fediverse should still be unbroken until that functionality is there.