So i will probably ponder this stuff a couple of times, but let me give you what popped up into my head innitially.
I feel we should really just go the route of show don't tell in a way...assuming you can actually get the attention of actual people (as opposed to some formal process and comittee whatever....i understand if that is part of the process at some point, but shit really needs to "land" first with atleast some of the indviduals involved).
But that said.
What do they want? These people don't know anything, they don't know what they want,all they are capable off is paroting these phrases and words, that in their heads don't mean anything concrete. "Open protocols'' etc etc. its all meaningless.
Il tell you what they want:
They want a system where anyone can build their own app (the want to) and they work interchangeably, that connects with any ''back-end/server'' interchangeably. They don't want vendor lock-in, on any level. That is what they want.
And this is what is kinda frustrating about all of this, because it is so utterly damned fucking trivial from a Nostr perspective. Its like describing the utility of a helicopter to a person who just can't wrap their head around the concept.
We want to go over there: Yeah thats fine, we just fly there.
But we also want to go up that mountain: yeah....thats fine....we just fly there.
Well but we also need to go to that island over there: YEAH THATS FINE, WE JUST FLY THERE FFS.
Just give your list of usecases, and people can make an app, or a collection of apps.
And yes, that blind kid can have his own app for blind people. And yes the kid without hands can have his app that he can operate with the stick that he controlls with his tongue. And yes all these things can just be, and nobody has to coordinate any of this, other than the set of NIPs we agree on what this ''public school infrastructue'' is going to be, and maybe some certification body that gives a stamp of approval after some sanity check.
They will probably just get into a more confused state going:
What do you mean we don't need a EU-public-tender process for a gazillion million euro's that will take ages and results in Capgemini or whatever building some crappy monolithic shit app/system that conforms to our million item requirement list and is ''opensource and build on an open standard''.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
I think the shit that was going on here with capgemini and billions lost in trying to build that monolith actually made *some* people loose trust in that consulting moneygrabbers.
But things just work in that way that they will have to fund activitypub / atproto stuff, if they find no arguments for nostr somewhere else. that's why we went to fosdem and hand in proposals at that luxembourg thing or not?
"show and tell": I attended every possible conference I could and dropped the word. I built for showing them that the solutions they are looking for are already there. A friend of mine is a prof for special education and is going right now from state to state to convince people of actually your example, because he got that nostr will actually enable this.
And some listened, but without lobbies like ones that
can run, it's hard for them to argue funding and exploring nostr based solutions further, because they will get asked why the fund stuff that's not recommended by that expert comissions. It's damn stupid, but that's how that shit works. I just want to make sure the money gets spent on something sensible. I already paid the last big failure they tried.

Eurosky
Eurosky – mu is here. The first of a thousand social apps.
Eurosky is a European initiative to build and operate sovereign social web infrastructure