on top of that you’re the first person I ever heard use the very term Social Web lol

@manton I’m a bit insulted that it seems to be exclusively ActivityPub tech, I like the Social WG that preceded it and which also standardized MicroPub, Webmention, WebSub

ActivityPub is important and interoperability is important – but this foundation seems to consider it as the one tech to rule all the social?

I’m not so keen on that

@voxpelli I agree, a broader scope would be good, or maybe the “Fediverse Foundation” instead if it is more narrowly ActivityPub. But naming is hard.

@manton Or “ActivityPub Foundation” if it’s a foundation to push ActivityPub based tech, as then anything IndieWeb, BlueSky or other tech is by definition excluded

@voxpelli @manton There are plenty of other organizations working on other protocols. If you would like to support them, you should definitely go ahead. This one is the foundation to support the expansion and improvement of the Fediverse, built on ActivityPub.

@evan @manton Why picking a name that indicates that it’s something more than that then?

And what went wrong with the plurality of tech in the Social WG? Maybe there’s an FAQ that puts this new foundation in its historical context and explains why it needed to be different?

@evan @manton Also: Any non-companies involved or is this an organization to push commercial adoption or are also independent developers like @manton (and eg. me) relevant to it? I mostly see big company logos?

@voxpelli @evan @manton

> The founders are supported by advisors from the social networking world including Chris Messina, Kaliya (Identity Woman) Young and Johannes Ernst, as well as companies and Open Source projects that have implemented ActivityPub...

@voxpelli I'd definitely love to see @manton become a supporter. I'll reach out to him; thanks for the suggestion.

@manton I'm sorry. This is on me. I've been reaching out to implementers directly and although I know about your work I didn't have you on our list. I'll reach out privately and we'll see what we can do to correct that.

@pfefferle @evan @manton Not sure if those Open Source projects that are referred to are projects like Mastodon and WordPress or projects done by smaller independent developers that don’t have dedicated people working in standards groups etc

@evan Thanks, no worries. I don’t usually feel entitled to be included anywhere, but that was just my honest initial reaction. Also added the 🤪 so hopefully people don’t take it too seriously. Best of luck.

@voxpelli @evan It’s a really interesting conversation about how we define “social web”. I’m with the broader definition to include other protocols. That’s not this foundation’s goal, and that’s fine too, but there are side effects… I need to think more about this.

@evan @manton

Would be good to get a link to the #openprocess involved in setting this up, like to have an idea how "native" these things are, we do need to mediate mess... not saying this #NGO aproch is not needed, just like to know the process that created it.

@manton No, it's valid. Mea culpa.

@rscottjones @manton @evanprodromou Yeah, yet in the announcement they define it as:

“The “social web”, also called the “Fediverse”, is a network of independent social platforms connected with the open standard protocol ActivityPub.”

https://socialwebfoundation.org/2024/09/24/launch/

That’s just inaccurate, the primary social web is still Facebook, Twitter, Reddit

I was puzzled when I saw the website and no mentions to Micro.blog or you.

@evan @manton Has projects like @LemmyDev, @manyfold or such been approached?

@manton @evan I do wonder though if some non-ActivityPub specs that are essential to Mastodon/Fediverse are still in scope for @socialwebfdn? Like eg. WebFinger?