This “toot” by one of the, if I understand this, (previous or current) consumers of the ActivityPub specification, shares a thought and most importantly a link to a post made by another, presumably, consumer.
In brief, there seem to be a quite some zealotting, passion, discussion, ignorance, considering, etc, about how to best create the spec for ActivityPub. It’s an interesting read, to see an article written by a critic of where ActivityPub as a body have headed for, for at least the last passing year.
If things are, even only roughly, as (I’ll call him) “schub” describes, it sounds like the people who are mainly sailing the ActivityPub ship, needs to take an introspective look at who they’re making it for.
In this day and age of literally multithousands of (mostly bad) APIs around the Internet of memes, I thought we had come to a collective point that APIs and specs are made for the individuals wanting to make a real use of it. The entity providing the spec has the sole responsibility of providing the rules of engagement as a guide and constraint to the implementer. Having a stance saying “you should (need) to talk to other implementers to get things straightened out in terms of interoperability” and the spec doesn’t state a bare minimum of constraints…… Just… Ugh…. I’m not envying anyone trying/wanting/being ordered to implement anything.