The paradox of Mastodon is no one (not even mastodon.social) likes mastodon.social dominating the network, or Eugen G being the sole arbiter of extensions to the common protocol,

but on the other hand, ultimately, the reason we all use Mastodon (IE, the part of the Fediverse people think of as "Mastodon", modeled on the Mastodon extensions to ActivityPub) instead of Secure Scuttlebutt or identi.ca or whatever is because Mastodon was the AP implementation that had one person's singular vision.

We *need* standard protocols like ActivityPub, but ultimately, users do not want a protocol. People do not want a formless ball of infinite potential. They want "Products". They want a clearly presented thing that they can put into their web browser or phone and it slots them into a legible user flow satisfying a specific user story. This is not because they are brainwashed by capitalism. It is because most people *have other shit to do* and don't want to bother with software that's unfinished.

This is what separates a semi-functional open source project on GitHub from a thing that becomes widespread with end users. Mastodon dot social was not the first ActivityPub frontend. But it was *opinionated*, and it anticipated common user desires (like an API for phone apps). You need to understand this if you want to bring a Mastodon successor system into being. Your system, or the user-facing part, has to be opinionated.

A piece of software which is not fully conceptualized *is unfinished*.

This creates a big problem, because in general we ("we" meaning "humans") aren't good at creating Things with singular, consistent visions unless there's a specific single human in charge of the entire vision. And "we" don't have many social structures that allow for a creation like that unless that single human winds up with inordinate control over the final creation, leading to either corporate control or (in OSS) "BDFL" projects where a single overworked maintainer becomes a point of failure.
@mcc Sustainability sans-BDFL can sometimes be achieved if the original creator manages to articulate the vision of the productized project well enough that others can rally behind that vision and keep moving it forward. Like a genie wish, though, it can end up with the original BDFL coming back and saying "No! Wait! Not like that though!" and you get successor projects like deno.
@isaacs deno actually sounded kind of nice to me, except I was turned off by it using its own package repo lol
@mcc I'm flattered, but despite the alleged oss rivalry, Deno in practice uses the same npm registry as the rest of js, just usually served through unpkg or esm.sh. And trex looks pretty promising. As more of the node world makes esm a first class path, the difference and inconvenience will diminish quite a lot, I think.
@isaacs To be totally honest it's not even I specifically "like" npm, I just remember the horrorshow period when npm and bower coexisted and tons of stuff on github supported exactly one which was a problem if you wanted to use TWO libraries in a single project. I don't want to have to *think* about whether whatever library supports the toolchain I'm using.
@mcc "it doesn't make me have to think" is about the highest praise you can give npm, so I'll take it lol