But atproto was never designed to be decentralized the way that mastodon/activitypub is. The main decentralization point is at the PDS level, where the "instance" (like bsky.social) doesn’t own said data and if they do things you don’t like, then you start using something else without that implying a migration (just start using blacksky.community). If your PDS is at the same place as your instance (as for most people), then that implies a migration (but it won’t change your identity the way that it does for mastodon).

On the governance front, a working group at the IETF was created to standardize the core parts of atproto: https://atproto.com/blog/kicking-off-the-atp-working-group

Its seems pretty cool! Fairly independent, and looks like it is based on a slightly different stack, which is nice to see.

I guess the question is: who budges when the protocol needs to change, and under what circumstances does someone feel the need to change ATProto?

If BlueSky decides to limit access to their API unless you register as a certified ATProto developer (vis-a-vis the current Android v Google showdown), would that harm BlackSky?

Likewise, if BlackSky keeps growing and decide they need something new, are they free to implement it or do they have to wait on BlueSky to catch up?

This is a cool project and I'm glad it was able to find purchase. I think the key to making the protocol Actually Good (read: actually open) to make things like this so pervasive or so undeniable that it waters down BlueSky's unique market position. Of course, ActivityPub interoperability would be cool too, but I understand that the Black community's experience on Masto has been pretty bad, so that may not come to fruition until the community here changes.

*something something that-xkcd-comic-about-n+1-competing-protocols* but, I mean, if BlueSky's going to publish the damn thing for free someone oughtta use it before they decide to lock it down.