Whither the open web foundation?

[John Eckman]

Thanks David Rudin for stewardship of the domain name registration (moving from Microsoft to the Linux Foundation). 

But to the question someone else asked, what really do we want next steps to be for OWF?

The agreements (OWF 1.0 and OWF 0.9) have been published and are available. ( https://www.openwebfoundation.org/the-agreements ) 

The welcome page says "The Open Web Foundation is an independent non-profit dedicated to the development and protection of open, non-proprietary specifications for web technologies."

The last announcement is from March 30th, 2011, listing a number of things to which the agreements were applied. 

The records stop after April 1 2009. 

So I guess it begs the question: is this an active foundation, or do we consider its purpose achieved and let the agreements sit as they are as agreements in a point in time?

What else would we be trying to steward?

• ActvityPub is a W3C recommendation. (Mastodon et al) 
• AT Protocol (BlueSky) is some kind of open-for-use but under trademark ( https://atproto.com/about/trademarks/atproto-trademark-policy ) - though that seems confusing to me. 

Do we just accept the AI overview I got this morning saying that OWF "still exists as an independent nonprofit but is largely inactive"?  

[Marc Canter]

I personally think that the Fediverse and Atmosphere are incredible, but only partially what's needed. Standardizing federated identity + friends/subscribers lists is great for sharing posts, but that can't be the ENTIRETY of the Open Web!

I've been tossing around the idea of taking the notion of an open registry of e-commerce vendors and allowing marketplaces to come along and invite/include ANY set of vendors into their marketplaces.

Open registries would hold all sorts of vendors; be ok ND to nee be products, services, pp packages goids, small or big items and all sorts of software, SaaS, until, content, entertainment or anything that sells stuff could all be available. It's all about WHERE DOES THE TRANSACTION HAPPEN!

Vendors would have one profile and catalog, and marketplaces would "render" vendors into their environments via templated layouts.

Customers would then vote with their wallets, choosing to route transactions to vendors via marketplaces and "retail" locations associated with:

• affiliations 

• regions

• politics

• NGOs

• philosophies, belief systems, etc.

I just think that limiting the Open Web to content sharing is - limited.

IMHO

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to open-web...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/open-web-discuss/CACnPxkZY2wCS1K7vjwJKzN1tPEGZ-g-%3Dc%2Bx51TS8g4YkcSCXRg%40mail.gmail.com.