Post #1912312

2026-01-13 04:37 UTC

@aburka I tried but nah it goes all the way to the top, and w3c staff send intimidation in response to dissent, so not worth it for most. The time to stop it was the last 2.5 years of discussion and conspicuous lack of consensus. that was all after w3c staff told insiders at TPAC 2023 off minutes “send me a charter and I’ll get the WG started right away”. It’s not up to us or even AP editors, none of whom have supported this. It’s up to the W3C CEO and board. “Vote with your feet”

Replies (2)

@bengo@mastodon.social 2026-01-13 04:57

@aburka one more thing: I’m genuinely super excited about the near term readiness of social webs based on open protocols and architecture appropriate for 2026, not AP’s outdated arch from more than 15 years ago (eg AP had client side signatures in 2017, but the chairs of the old group cut it at the last minute so now your Mastodon instance can spoof you). "The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." – John Maynard Keynes.

Open ##1912313
@omz13@mastodon.social 2026-01-16 06:21

@bengo @aburka As I’ve always said, just because it’s a specification it doesn’t mean you have to implement it. I’m more of an applied than pure developer, so I tend to prefer things from IETF than W3C (not that that is any kind of endorsement from me because IETF’s RFCs are not exactly immune from pay-to-play). I’m sure everybody involved has the best intentions, as always, but.

Open ##1912317