Re: [Social-discuss] Interoperability?

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

Thanks for the quick followup, Ted!

On 05/27/2010 04:37 PM, Ted Smith wrote:
> This is all rather new. Here's the recent timeline:
> 
>       * On May 6th, Matt Lee posted to this list (social-discuss) with
>         the subject line "The next step". This email outlined a new plan
>         for the GNU Social project:


This is the full message for those who want to read the archives:

 http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/social-discuss/2010-05/msg00015.html

i actually had read most of that message but i confess i'd missed this
crucial framing of the re-direction amid the eloquent statement of the
problems with centralized social networks.  The message also ends with:

>> What does the protocol look like? We'll be working with some of the best
>> people out there in the free software and social web communities to
>> bring you that answer.

Which is not exactly a call for contributions (unless the reader has a
huge ego ;P ).

>       * Since then very little discussion on this topic has happened, on
>         this list or on address@hidden (in fact, that list has about two
>         threads IIRC).

this is the first i'm hearing of address@hidden  can you explain the
difference between that list and this one?  why is that list not listed
on the wiki?

> People need to speak up about this protocol we're supposedly developing,
> otherwise this project will rapidly lose relevance and die. Someone
> might do what we're trying to do now, but I'd rather not leave that up
> to chance. 

Yes, agreed!  Perhaps a small number of framing questions would be
useful to get the discussion going?

        --dkg

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature