Notices by Udon (udon@social.076.moe), page 21

The mailing list of W3C Social Web Incubator Community Group has been very active lately. The participants are talking about the next version of #ActivityPub specification.
I didn't pay much attention to it because I think it is simply a bad idea. We already have Fediverse Enhancement Proposals, and there's no reason to start another standardization process. Moreover, Fediverse has so many different software platforms and communities that achieving consensus is impossible. #FEP process suits Fediverse better because we don't have to agree on a single document. It is more efficient and more inclusive.

Unfortunately, the initiative has gathered significant support. It is actively promoted by a group of people associated with FediForum unconference, which was rightfully criticized for using proprietary software and charging fees. They present themselves as "internet OGs".

Today I encountered a post that sheds some light on their intentions:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230326164755/https://reb00ted.org/tech/20230425-w3c-activitypub-wishlist/

Sure, some of these points are good. They want to create a new, simplified specification. Let's call it ActivityPub FediForum Edition:

>This could be done as a “minimal profile” of a stack that contains a subset of AP, AS, and Webfinger ... enables implementors to have a “MVP”-style interop at lowest-possible engineering effort (including the time required to read/understand the specs\!) ... over time, this test suite can grow beyond the minimal profile

This is sometimes referred to as "conformance profile". For example, if you want to write an interoperable microblogging app, such document can be very useful. But that doesn't require a centralized governance body, right? Anyone who wants to make a proposal can simply submit a FEP.

>A branding program for products that have passed the test suite ... As an implementor, you get to put the sticker on your product. ... In particular, in the places in the product where users “connect” to other servers in the Fediverse, like “Visa” is displayed at the POS terminal ... I believe this will become critical if/when larger orgs with potentially different value systems connect to the Fediverse

Ah, that explains it. They want an enforcement mechanism. Once ActivityPub FediForum Edition is legitimized by becoming a W3C standard, those who demonstrate loyalty to "larger orgs" will receive a certificate. Those who refuse, will be declared unworthy and banished from the network. That's what this really is about.

I think it would be better to just ignore W3C SWICG because any centralized structure is a backdoor for special interests. Don't support this nonsense, instead help developers and protocol researchers who are doing the real work.