still thinking about open source contributions that aren’t code and really focusing on design.
in my time at the LF — which does serve a need, but only because: capitalism — i often felt like folks were almost TOO “deep in” to see little things that i felt were obvious.
everyone shouting “well if we don’t establish a shared governance committee to ensure future interoperability of the underlying frameworks.…!” and i’m like “ok wild idea here but what if the apps weren’t hard to use and ugly”
https://openlogos.org/ is an example that made me really happy. if you’re a graphic design student, teacher or hobbyist, why not make every one of your projects address an open source project that has no visual identity?
i totally get that many many open source software projects are spun out from internal corporate projects, where there was a need for a name and little else.
then, when they are transitioned to become OSS, they get some visual treatment.
might be interesting to see if homegrown OSS projects who experiment with “friendliness-first”, “UX-first” compete better with corporate OSS, who do that work last
@bob all that tracks for me. good take.
one thing i often wonder about this dynamic (when a relative latecomer gains the largest OSS community/“ecosystem”) is: why not improve friendica or hubzilla? is it not a somewhat capitalist-thinking move to build one’s own thing instead of improving the existing thing? or, do the creators truly have a strongly differing vision, enough to justify “splitting the market” of prospective fediversians?
@bob i suppose my more pointed take would be:
do developers of activitypub-based community platforms want activitypub to succeed? do they want the bulk of social media users to abandon surveillance-capitalist sites? or do they want to build a successful product, above those other concerns
Yeah what @cwebber said.
The developers of projects that implement ActivityPub are doing so to enhance the appeal of their project and make the project succeed, not to make the protocol more popular. The protocol is just the means. The end goal is to foster deeper interactions between platforms and hosts--to make the World Wide Web actually like the web it was intended to be.
If we all just worked on one AP project there would be no diversity and the end goal wouldn't be met.
@msh @cwebber @bob i get the diff between protocols and clients etc; my poorly-worded point was more that without an over-arching shared goal or centralization around a uniquely important shared component, development can become more competitive than cooperative, reducing efficiency; reducing the likelihood of addressing a large group of users
"...centralization around a uniquely important shared component..."
Centralization to forward the goals of federation.
Ya gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure 😂
I think I get what you're saying though. Sabotaging interoperability in pursuit of market share the way IE did then and the way Chrome does now has caused great damage to the web.
I hope this doesn't become a problem with ActivityPub (I hope Gargron keeps that in mind especially)
Micro-blogging site operated by Mark Shane Hayden of Coalesco Digital Systems Inc. We are located in Alberta, Canada. This is NOT intended to be a commercial/promotional site! Registration is open to anyone interested in civil discussions on any interesting topic--especially technology, current events and politics.