Re: [GNU/consensus] [Social] More internal use of ActivityStreams?

[hellekin (GNU Consensus)]

On 01/03/2013 08:44 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> 
>     I stopped caring about Tent.io when I realised they were working
>     _against_ established standards and methods
>
*** Mikael, I hope this misunderstanding can be cleared when the Tent
people join the conversation. As far as I can tell, they thought the
lack of privacy in OStatus' scope was enough of a reason to take another
approach. I can't blame them for that choice. There are other
occurrences of "forks" that were beneficial to the community: look at
how Merb created a better Rails, by focusing on different features, that
ended up being integrated into the core of Ruby on Rails in the next
major version.

> record of building same origin social networking sites
>
*** Indeed Melvin, but that is not comparable: building a single Web
site is a simple thing to do. Making it work seamlessly with others is
another story.

If we look at OAuth, the specification sounds great, but the
implementation disastrous: why would I give a third-party write access
to my profile if it only needs to access a feature (my status updates)
to read it! That entirely nullifies the intent of the specification.
That should be addressed as a blocker bug, because privacy is more
important than convenience.

Next iterations of OAuth will certainly address that mistake, but it
prompts the question of the importance of ethics in programming:
unintended consequences can be terrible in that context.

> There have been instances of social web sites ineroperating with XMPP too.
>
*** I started a list of potential partners on the wiki: it indeed
contains XMPP-based projects. It needs some love: some categories,
templates, etc. Please reply to that point by mentioning [wiki] in the
Subject.

> try and operate from a perspective of tolerance, and see what
> you can learn from other projects.
>
*** Although I agree with your idea, I would recommend against using the
word "tolerance". Historically, a "tolerance" was a permission granted
by the religious authority to allow infidels to access Church-controlled
areas, for e.g., trading. Therefore, unlike the common understanding of
that word today, it proceeds from a dominant perspective that is far
from our purpose of integrity and transclusion, and from your idea.

>Indeed we have lost valuable partners, such as friendica from this.
>
*** Who is "we"? I listed Friendica as a stakeholder, and a potential
partner on the wiki. In the next weeks, I will contact all projects
individually if they don't come by themselves. A consensus needs all
parties to emerge.

> if you can take time to look at things from the perspectives of other
> projects, you may gain a gain a great deal.  Working together we can do
> more.
>
*** +1

Time is a rare resource, making tools that can save time and enable
understanding of complex issues, to raise the bar above "us" and "them",
is a critical part of reaching a consensus.

==
hk

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature