DX Requirement content format

[helge]

@benpate

So far, that’s pretty close to the original ActivityPub vision, yes?

I wrote here:

@helge

On Mastodon controlling ActivityPub: I think one of the main reasons why I am here, is that ActivityPub creates a bad power dynamic. A specification should allow people to read it, and then decide if something is right or wrong. ActivityPub does not pass this bar. Instead one asks “Will it federate with Mastodon?” However, the details of the situation are unimportant. What matters is that we want to develop a new approach that allows one to avoid these type of situations.

The thing is not that ActivityPub is a bad basis for creating an application that federates. The problem is that ActivityPub is a bad basis for two independent people to create applications that federate. I also allude to it here, one could take the outbox part of ActivityPub and build something that entirely works with static site generators. Unfortunately, this will not interoperate with the current inbox based Fediverse.

For me the goal needs to be “Create a protocol. Two independent implementations of it, will interoperate”.

---

The second thing is: I’m not in a position to judge what the original ActivityPub vision it. I don’t think it’s written down somewhere.