February 2026 ForumWG Meeting
Forums and Threaded Discussions Task Force
1
Posts
1
Posters
0
Views
-
Monthly meetings are held on the first Thursday of each month, at 13h00 to 14h00 Eastern Time (currently 18h00 to 19h00 UTC). You can find them listed in the SocialCG Calendar. The next meeting will be held (today) on 5 February 2026.
Meeting link: https://meet.jit.si/ap-forum-wg
There is no set agenda for this month's meeting.
- @julian will discuss a new FEP-f15d: Context Relocation and Removal and integration efforts with the Lemmy and Piefed folk.
- Updates re: FEP-4f05: Soft Deletion and WordPress and Mastodon's efforts to implement
-
undefined julian@activitypub.space shared this topic
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
Monthly meetings are held on the first Thursday of each month, at 13h00 to 14h00 Eastern Time (currently 18h00 to 19h00 UTC). You can find them listed in the SocialCG Calendar. The next meeting will be held (today) on 5 February 2026.
Meeting link: https://meet.jit.si/ap-forum-wg
There is no set agenda for this month's meeting.
@julian will discuss a new FEP-f15d: Context Relocation and Removal and integration efforts with the Lemmy and Piefed folk. Updates re: FEP-4f05: Soft Deletion and WordPress and Mastodon's efforts to implement
-
@silverpill@mitra.social said in Minutes from 4 December 2025 WG Meeting:
> It's not possible to sign a dynamic object, because some of its properties are constantly changing (items, totalItems and others). This means collections need to be always server-managed. Therefore, clients shouldn't be allowed to directly create, update or delete them.Mmm, signing doesn't guarantee data correctness, it only guarantees that the data presented is correct as of sending, per the sender's point of view.
Just like how signing a Create(Note) only guarantees that the note's data is what it is at the time of the Create, a Move(Context) only guarantees the validity of the context's data at the time of the Move.
That said, this FEP doesn't have you including the entire object in, just the URI, so this is moot........ no?
-
Sorry it took so long to respond to this —
Re: assumption of a context belonging to one audience
> Where, in Lemmy? Even if some implementations don't support cross-posting I don't see a reason to block it at the protocol level.This FEP doesn't block cross-posting at the protocol level. Move just explicitly states that a context was Removed from one and Added to another. You could achieve this just fine with Remove followed by Add, but this just reduces it down to a single activity and eliminates any side-effects (e.g. a Remove without corresponding Add might mean content is purged from the db)
So in theory, a context can belong to multiple audiences, and it can be moved from one to another, or removed from one.
-
Collections are dynamic objects because they can be paginated and filtered. It's not possible to sign a dynamic object, because some of its properties are constantly changing (items, totalItems and others). This means collections need to be always server-managed. Therefore, clients shouldn't be allowed to directly create, update or delete them.
I think the proposed Move activity is an obfuscated Update because it changes the collection directly.
-
>the assumption is already there
Where, in Lemmy? Even if some implementations don't support cross-posting I don't see a reason to block it at the protocol level.
And Update is simpler, that's one activity instead of two (Move and Remove).
-
silverpill@mitra.social said in Minutes from 4 December 2025 WG Meeting:
> 2. Treating collections (dynamic views) as static objects that can be moved, deleted etc is not compatible with client-side signing.You mentioned this before, but I am not sure what you are referring to. Do you mind elaborating?
-
silverpill@mitra.social said in Minutes from 4 December 2025 WG Meeting:
> 1. It assumes that a context always belongs to one group.Yes that's correct. There was the potential for a context to belong to multiple audiences but social issues preclude further research.
Specifically, moderation gets very messy when contexts are cross posted to diametrically opposing audiences, and so that's not something I am equipped to work through right now.
Secondly, the assumption is already there that a context only belongs to one audience. We will not change that expectation.
-
FEP-f15d: Context Relocation and Removal
I have two objections to this proposal. We discussed them before in Moving topics/contexts between communities:
1. It assumes that a context always belongs to one group.
As I suggested in the aforementioned thread, an Update activity is a better solution because it works when relationship between a context and a group is many-to-many. It is also semantically cleaner: "update collection audience" instead of "move collection from actor 1 to actor 2" and "remove collection from actor" (at least if ActivityStreams terminology is used).
2. Treating collections (dynamic views) as static objects that can be moved, deleted etc is not compatible with client-side signing.
One possible solution is to separate context (an object) and its contents (a collection).
