[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Social-discuss] Interoperability?

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor
Subject: Re: [Social-discuss] Interoperability?
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:51:35 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100411 Icedove/3.0.4

Thanks for the quick followup, Ted!

On 05/27/2010 04:37 PM, Ted Smith wrote:
> This is all rather new. Here's the recent timeline:
>       * On May 6th, Matt Lee posted to this list (social-discuss) with
>         the subject line "The next step". This email outlined a new plan
>         for the GNU Social project:

This is the full message for those who want to read the archives:

i actually had read most of that message but i confess i'd missed this
crucial framing of the re-direction amid the eloquent statement of the
problems with centralized social networks.  The message also ends with:

>> What does the protocol look like? We'll be working with some of the best
>> people out there in the free software and social web communities to
>> bring you that answer.

Which is not exactly a call for contributions (unless the reader has a
huge ego ;P ).

>       * Since then very little discussion on this topic has happened, on
>         this list or on address@hidden (in fact, that list has about two
>         threads IIRC).

this is the first i'm hearing of address@hidden  can you explain the
difference between that list and this one?  why is that list not listed
on the wiki?

> People need to speak up about this protocol we're supposedly developing,
> otherwise this project will rapidly lose relevance and die. Someone
> might do what we're trying to do now, but I'd rather not leave that up
> to chance. 

Yes, agreed!  Perhaps a small number of framing questions would be
useful to get the discussion going?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]