On 3 January 2013 17:09, hellekin (GNU Consensus)
<address@hidden> wrote:
On 01/03/2013 08:44 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
> I stopped caring about Tent.io when I realised they were working
> _against_ established standards and methods
>
*** Mikael, I hope this misunderstanding can be cleared when the Tent
people join the conversation. As far as I can tell, they thought the
lack of privacy in OStatus' scope was enough of a reason to take another
approach. I can't blame them for that choice. There are other
occurrences of "forks" that were beneficial to the community: look at
how Merb created a better Rails, by focusing on different features, that
ended up being integrated into the core of Ruby on Rails in the next
major version.
> record of building same origin social networking sites
>
*** Indeed Melvin, but that is not comparable: building a single Web
site is a simple thing to do. Making it work seamlessly with others is
another story.
If we look at OAuth, the specification sounds great, but the
implementation disastrous: why would I give a third-party write access
to my profile if it only needs to access a feature (my status updates)
to read it! That entirely nullifies the intent of the specification.
That should be addressed as a blocker bug, because privacy is more
important than convenience.
Next iterations of OAuth will certainly address that mistake, but it
prompts the question of the importance of ethics in programming:
unintended consequences can be terrible in that context.
Sure OAuth is not ideal, in fact the main author left and called it a fail. Personally as far as web 2.0 tech goes I think it's not bad, and has a role. There are many ways to do authentication. But you start first with identification.
> There have been instances of social web sites ineroperating with XMPP too.
>
*** I started a list of potential partners on the wiki: it indeed
contains XMPP-based projects. It needs some love: some categories,
templates, etc. Please reply to that point by mentioning [wiki] in the
Subject.
> try and operate from a perspective of tolerance, and see what
> you can learn from other projects.
>
*** Although I agree with your idea, I would recommend against using the
word "tolerance". Historically, a "tolerance" was a permission granted
by the religious authority to allow infidels to access Church-controlled
areas, for e.g., trading. Therefore, unlike the common understanding of
that word today, it proceeds from a dominant perspective that is far
from our purpose of integrity and transclusion, and from your idea.
Appreciate your point of view but I am not using the religious connotation, but rather, tolerance is one of the axioms of the web:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.htmlPerhaps you would be more comfortable with the term 'respect'. That each project or tech should show respect for the view points of others.
>Indeed we have lost valuable partners, such as friendica from this.
>
*** Who is "we"? I listed Friendica as a stakeholder, and a potential
partner on the wiki. In the next weeks, I will contact all projects
individually if they don't come by themselves. A consensus needs all
parties to emerge.
FSW community group. It's great if you are able to bring MIke or any of the others back to the conversation. I'm a big fan.
> if you can take time to look at things from the perspectives of other
> projects, you may gain a gain a great deal. Working together we can do
> more.
>
*** +1
Time is a rare resource, making tools that can save time and enable
understanding of complex issues, to raise the bar above "us" and "them",
is a critical part of reaching a consensus.
+1
There are mailing lists for many project specific works all over. I joined this list in the hope that we could foster a spirit of interop, that has failed to happen in other groups. It's not about portraying one technology as the 'best', it's about working together to achieve meaningful milestones.
==
hk