Quoting @cwebber in dustycloud.org/blog/on-standar:

"participants in the decentralized social web is so good at fighting each other that apparently we do that work for them.

But it doesn't have to be that way. You might be able to come to consensus on a good way forward. And if you can't come to consensus, you can at least have friendly and cooperative communication."

Looking at gnu.org/consensus

Maybe it should be renamed GNU ControVerse.

Quoting @rhiaro in rhiaro.github.io/thesis/chapte: (1/2)

"Eventually the Working Group as a whole acknowledged this, and resolved to move forward all of the prospective standards separately, and to stop trying to force convergence.

This decision was controversial in the eyes of other members of the wider W3C community who were not members of Social Web Working Group, and potentially confusing for developers looking for the solution to decentralised Social Web protocols."

Show thread

Quoting @rhiaro in rhiaro.github.io/thesis/chapte: (2/2)

"However the effect was that specification editors stopped arguing about why their way was better, and were free to move their work forward without needing to defend their decisions from people who fundamentally disagreed with their underlying assumptions. Specification editors who had accepted their differences began to help each other, and to share findings and experiences (because they are all working towards the same end goal, after all)."

Show thread

@how aahhh those were the days.

It's sort of hypocritical for me to host my thesis about decentralisation on a centralised service, maybe you could share links from dr.amy.gy in future? :)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!