On 8 January 2013 19:50, hellekin (GNU Consensus)
<address@hidden> wrote:
On 01/08/2013 03:12 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> The hyperlink 'OStatus Protocols' does not point to Ostatus Protocols.
> I can not easily locate the specification, for example.
>
*** Can you provide an alternate link that would be better?
If you can point to the OStatus protocol please do, if not I suggest removing.
>
> "The GNU Consensus considers OStatus the best current protocol for
> federating social network services"
>
> I find this statement problematic. Who exactly is 'The GNU Consensus'
> and by what criteria do you judge 'best'?
>
*** If that statement is not consensual, we can change it. What do you
suggest? The GNU consensus is not a who. At the time of the writing,
'best' was used, maybe improperly, to signify the most used or sought
for in the ecosystem of federated social networking free software. It is
implemented, more or less, in all major federation projects that I know
of, except the ones that rely on FOAF or XMPP. But ActivityStreams in
ATOM, WebID, PuSH, and Salmon are widely available, aren't they?
Best appears as a marketing term, if you wish to use such a term I simply wish to understand the justification.
You have stated a number of different technologies there. Some deal with how to identify a user in a digital way, some deal with transportation of messages, some deal with serialization of the payload, some deal with security, some deal with a mixture of all. It's understandable that it's confusing. A careful start might be to consider in depth a command like:
$ curl <URL> \
-d to=<to> \
-d comment=<message>
I suggest coming up with concrete use cases and then establishing compliance. The first use case should be, can I add a friend from system A to system B. We need to ask projects how they identify their users in digital string form, and if it's possible to translate that string of characters to something another system can understand unambiguously. If yes, we're good. If not, move to the next.
> Wheras royalty free non
> proprietary standards have been evolving over the social web for 12
> years plus and is now getting at least basic adoption from about 25%,
> some say more.
>
*** Then that sounds more consensual than OStatus. What protocols? Is
"non proprietary" equivalent to free?
We have 2 well established bodies for this stuff, the IETF for internet wide standards, and the world wide web consortium or web based standards.
> I can understand why a maniefesto may include such a statement two years
> ago, but perhaps it's time to re evaluate and have more meaningful and
> transparent metrics as to how to pick winners and losers.
>
*** I don't see how picking winners and losers can help reach a
consensus. As mentioned somewhere else, we're about nurturing diversity,
not showing who does things better than the other. But yes, metrics,
adoption, etc. We need that.
Yes that sounds good. Make use cases and tests. I can name you the 7 facebook have used to reach 1 billion people in fact the API is open. It's starts with friending. Break down the walled gardens ...
==
hk