Post #1912291

2026-01-15 16:45 UTC

@evan @julian @darius @dmitri This is not only about fairness and openness, but even moreso about backwards compatibility and not changing the conformance classes in a way that will effectively 'fork' ActivityPub. Which is why I emailed you Jan 16, 2024 with concerns about the changes to normative references in your draft (no reply). A WG is ONLY needed to make non normative changes affecting conformance classes like you've authored into your draft.

Replies (2)

@bengo@mastodon.social 2026-01-15 16:49

@evan @julian @darius @dmitri IMHO what's best for fellow implementers and end-users, and most fair to those who took risk to implement the specification as agreed upon, is: WE DO NOT BREAK USERSPACE[0] Linus' diction in that footnote is not great, but the principle is. It stands up for all implementers, not just corporate/rich ones. That's leadership in protocol development. Instead some of our leaders have not only been breaking userspace, but doing it for hire. [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFy98A+LJK4+GWMcbzaa1zsPBRo76q+ioEjbx-uaMKH6Uw@mail.gmail.com/

Open ##1912292
@evan@cosocial.ca 2026-01-15 18:10

@bengo @julian @darius @dmitri That doesn't ring a bell. Checking my email archives, I see your announcement of activitypub-testing on 15 Jan and you declined the AP issue triage on 17 Jan.

Open ##1912293