I am forever grateful to him for building & popularizing Mastodon, but I don't think @Gargron should be working on features at all right now.

Instead, he and the Mastodon non-profit (and a whole bunch of others) should be figuring out governance for collectively making decisions about Mastodon. Features in the Fediverse shouldn't be up to one guy, or even one company.

That's the whole point of the Fediverse. We do this together, or not at all.

@blaine @Gargron

W3C has a process for that. Just in case we want a socially viable way of minority protection, internationalization and accessibility for the way features are added and made interoperable.

And this has to be distinguished from Mastodon, a software, deciding what to implement next.

I'm with @atomicpoet here. Do not reduce the fediverse to Mastodon only. But it would be a drama if Mastodon would quit the compatibility with ActivityPub.

@rigo @blaine @Gargron @atomicpoet Interesting! What is the W3C’s decision-making governance process?
W3C Process Document