ATProto's tbd permission system is insufficient for the granularity needed in enterprise. Many of those features needed (like groups) will have to be built in an app view and by proxy be centralized. ACLs are two generations in the past of IAM history

Chat is also not a great modality for the PDS/ATP, Roomy learned this and is building a dedicated protocol and bridge.

▲

jacobgold 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There's a new feature being added to AT to support "permissioned data" that would handle a Slack-like use-case: https://github.com/bluesky-social/proposals/tree/main/0016-p...

	▲	verdverm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I know about it, that's the one I'm referring to. That proposal is insufficient. I was deeply involved in the private data discussions, built a PDS fork / prototype on ReBAC/SpiceDB, and presented it at the first Private Data WG (which no one from Bluesky attended). Bluesky has chosen a path that suits them, not the community at large. You can learn more about my work here: https://github.com/verdverm/atproto the community convos here: https://discourse.atprotocol.community/tag/private-data/2 At this point, Bluesky controls the protocol, decided what they want permissioned spaces to look like, and are not entertaining any other proposals (afaict). I expect there to be an eventual successor that puts permissions at the core of the protocol from the very start.