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.