The minutes from yesterday’s Forum and Threaded Discussions Task Force monthly meeting can be found at this Google Docs link
Apologies in advance if I misrepresented anybody or missed any crucial bits of information.
Of note:
Mastodon and its treatment of non-note items
- Darius Kazemi (@[email protected]) reports that Hometown already supports improved conversion of non-note items (like
as:Article) into statuses, and that this serves as a working proof-of-concept towards getting this merged upstream into Mastodon proper. - We discussed briefly the Mastodon PR approval process and how it sometimes drives away contributions
- Darius emphasized the importance of showing real user support to facilitate the merging of pull requests.
Context Collections and FEP Convergence
- Julian proposed consolidating various FEPs (7888, 400e, 171b) to publish a unified recommendation.
- Evan (@[email protected]) objected to the use of the “context” property in FEP 7888, advocating for a new vocabulary instead.
- The discussion included differing views on the utility of the context property and its historical usage.
- Darius utilized his data observatory (TBD) data set to hopefully prove that
contextis not a properly currently seeing any usage.
“Convenings” and Collaboration Initiatives:
- Darius, representing the Applied Social Media Lab, proposed organizing physical meetings to enhance interoperability in the fediverse.
- He will provide a blog post detailing the ActivityPub Data Observatory and related goals.
ActivityPub Trust & Safety Task Force
- A new task force will focus on protocol-level issues within ActivityPub, including proper content warnings and labeling.
- Meetings are tentatively scheduled for the second Tuesday of each month (starting November), with a call for input on scheduling.
@evan @julian @darius That doesn’t really cover the why other than “context is vaguely defined” (maybe, but its’ been used in this exact way for… 7 years now? And is being used in this way by multiple interoperating implementations)
@erincandescent @julian @evan it does mention the @context name collision which is imo a real point of confusion
@erincandescent @julian @darius great. You can definitely use both.
contextis fine for any kind of grouping of objects, as is noted in AV.https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-context
If you want to specifically talk about a conversation tree, a more specific property is better.
@erincandescent @julian @darius finally, if you’d like to talk to me as part of the Threads TF or even as part of the FEP process, where there’s a code of conduct, I’d appreciate it if you dial back your derisive tone. It’s not OK to talk to me or anybody else working on AP that way.
@erincandescent @julian @darius I think the best followup might be commenting on the PR or filing an issue on Codeberg.
@evan @julian @darius Would the same line of argumentation not apply for “Why is this a new FEP and not an issue raised against FEP-7888?”
@evan @julian @darius I don’t really have a horse in this race but we’ll probably never get rid of the existing use of
contextso I mostly question the advantage of us having to deal with three conversation grouping properties for the indefinite future