People criticized my decision to delay releasing Loops source.
General Discussion
4
Posts
4
Posters
20
Views
-
People criticized my decision to delay releasing Loops source. I made the right call.
With everything now public, admins + devs running the beta are loving it.
"Loops federation is working very good btw!" - @trankten
"(the app) looks very nice and smooth rn" - @Skivling
Took 3 app iterations + 2 backend rewrites đ
Proud of what we've built together.
The best is yet to come, and it's going to be insane â€ïž
-
undefined notizie@poliverso.org shared this topic on
-
People criticized my decision to delay releasing Loops source. I made the right call.
With everything now public, admins + devs running the beta are loving it.
"Loops federation is working very good btw!" - @trankten
"(the app) looks very nice and smooth rn" - @Skivling
Took 3 app iterations + 2 backend rewrites đ
Proud of what we've built together.
The best is yet to come, and it's going to be insane â€ïž
@dansup After all, we're in the Fediverse: it's true that it's an environment that recognizes the values ââof open source, but it also needs to be an environment where everyone respects each other's time.
You did well not to give in to "social pressure" and to take all the time you needed: after all, you've saved precious time for anyone who wants to contribute to code improvements in the future. -
People criticized my decision to delay releasing Loops source. I made the right call.
With everything now public, admins + devs running the beta are loving it.
"Loops federation is working very good btw!" - @trankten
"(the app) looks very nice and smooth rn" - @Skivling
Took 3 app iterations + 2 backend rewrites đ
Proud of what we've built together.
The best is yet to come, and it's going to be insane â€ïž
@dansup @trankten @Skivling You kept your word even though some may have doubted it despite the prior evidence of you being a good actor.
Unfortunately I believe it has happened that less ethical devs have misled people that way so the idea in the screenshot isn't entirely wrong. Just missing the part that some people can in fact be trusted more than others.
I imagine you've earned more trust in the eyes of some that used to doubt you now too.
-
People criticized my decision to delay releasing Loops source. I made the right call.
With everything now public, admins + devs running the beta are loving it.
"Loops federation is working very good btw!" - @trankten
"(the app) looks very nice and smooth rn" - @Skivling
Took 3 app iterations + 2 backend rewrites đ
Proud of what we've built together.
The best is yet to come, and it's going to be insane â€ïž
@dansup @trankten @Skivling Anyone who spends any time contributing code online will eventually receive entitled, selfish and lazy users with snarky and unproductive comments trying to diminish their work. Open source (or don't) your code whenever you feel like it, choose whatever license you feel fits your project, push commits/tag releases whenever you feel like it, enable/disable the issue tracker as you see fit, you don't owe anyone your time and skills.
Congrats on the release! đ„ł
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@naturzukunft2026 many such cases, sadly
-
@eyeinthesky @evan @trwnh the charter has the correct scope. I believe Evan was responding to discussion about the Fediverse and trying to point out the venn diagram overlap of Fediverse and WG charter. As such, indieweb stuff didn't factor in to that conversation. Or at least that was my read -- I raised an eyebrow when I read the email too!
-
@trwnh @evan @darius So maybe the narrow WG focus is aspirational (or participant-specific) rather than official. I've read that Indieweb leaders like Tantek will be involved so that sounds like there's interest from them too. Maybe there will be somewhat independent subgroups working on different subsets of specs?
-
@eyeinthesky @evan @darius a lot of this is probably in https://github.com/swicg/meetings but you'll have to find it first -- it's not in one piece
-
@eyeinthesky @evan @darius i believe the rechartering process led up to people landing on more or less the following:
- the primary reason for rechartering is that AP people want to work on updating AP/AS2
- however, there are other specs which also need updates, but don't want to recharter separately
- the w3c liaisons advised making the charter broader rather than narrower, to avoid potentially needing to amend the charter
- the work will be driven primarily by availability of editorsiirc?
-
On the W3C SocialCG mailing list, I saw that @evan wrote "The WG ... is focused on a narrow core: Activity Streams and ActivityPub." The WG charter describes a much broader scope. What am I missing?
-
Mastodon is a black hole. ActivityPub Academy receives my notes, Mastodon accepts them and ignores them. That's a bit annoying. In the meantime, I've remembered the mention speciality, which I'll probably never understand. You can only federate if you adapt to the peculiarities of Mastodon. The spec is ActivityPub, but federation is unfortunately Mastodon.
#activitypub #mastodon
-
The new W3C #ActivityPub Working Group is not that. Or not just that. It's a "Social Web" Working Group and includes maintenance of ActivityPub, WebSub, Activity Streams, Activity Vocabulary, MicroPub, Linked Data Notifications, Webmention, and LOLA specifications. Maintaining all these disparate specs in one WG seems like it will lead to similar results as the first time this was tried (not great). What's that saying about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results? đ
