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.
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.
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.
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.
==
hk