# Wiki: Vision for a Fedi Specification

**URL:** <https://discuss.coding.social/t/wiki-vision-for-a-fedi-specification/563>\
**Category:** Prosocial foundations\
**Tags:** wiki, social-web, vision\
**Created:** [November 14, 2024, 10:09am UTC](https://discuss.coding.social/t/wiki-vision-for-a-fedi-specification/563 "2024-11-14T10:09:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 22

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![helge](https://discuss.coding.social/user_avatar/discuss.coding.social/helge/32/252_2.png) [@helge](https://discuss.coding.social/u/helge)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2024, 2:33pm UTC](https://discuss.coding.social/t/wiki-vision-for-a-fedi-specification/563/22 "2024-11-20T14:33:47Z")

</div>

> [@aschrijver](#):
>
> ## Improving procedure? Channels to use?
> 
> > [@d3v0](#):
> >
> > Isn’t Mastodon already handed much of ActivityPub?
> 
> I do wonder how we best deal with questions like these. Whether we should move those to parallel discussion threads, and focus here exclusively on gathering people’s input and molding that into a comprehensive summary document?

I think there are two aspects:

1. Moving discussions that are not about what belongs into a Fedi Specification away from this thread is good policy. So most topics concerning ActivityPub and Mastodon should be moved elsewhere. I said above that defining a protocol in terms of properties is problematic. I hold a similar opinion to defining a protocol based on other protocols or applications using said protocol.
2. 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.

Here **new approach** does not mean new new, but rather use what has worked in the past in similar situations and avoid what hasn’t worked for ActivityPub. See [useful information](https://discuss.coding.social/t/wiki-vision-for-a-fedi-specification/563/4) above.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.coding.social/t/wiki-vision-for-a-fedi-specification/563)._