Re: Next steps of FPWD for Social API?

OK everyone,

While I understand Tantek's skepticism, I think a document that helps
clarifies. In my experience, raising issues and edits around a single
document is often a pretty good way to make progress.

I'll take a first stab at this next week in order to get a general
W3C-compliant outline and put it in the Github repo, and then I'll setup
Aaron and Jessica as editors (Amy - can you still help?). We can discuss
more on the Tuesday call, and also make sure the SoLiD approach is well
represented.

  cheers,
        harry


On 05/12/2015 03:44 AM, Aaron Parecki wrote:
> I'd be happy to contribute as Harry suggests!
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:38 AM Bassetti, Ann <ann.bassetti@boeing.com
> <mailto:ann.bassetti@boeing.com>> wrote:
>
>     I'd be pleased with Aaron and Jessica!
>
>     I'd also strongly like to suggest Amy as editor -- either by
>     herself, or with others. As we can see from her summary of the
>     meeting, she's an excellent compiler of concepts and a good writer.
>
>      -- Ann
>
>     Ann Bassetti
>     *From: *Harry Halpin
>     *Sent: *Tuesday, May 12, 2015 7:36 AM
>     *To: *public-socialweb@w3.org <mailto:public-socialweb@w3.org>
>     *Subject: *Next steps of FPWD for Social API?
>
>
>     Usually when faced with writing the first draft of a FPWD, it requires
>     having a rough draft of some pre-existing work. Now, given that we are
>     blessed with three pre-existing designs and that after the Paris
>     F2F the
>     various people are seeing the core similarities/differences, would now
>     be a good time to see if a joint draft between the three candidates
>     could be produced, with one or two neutral editors.
>
>     Would Tysekia, Aaron, and someone from SoLiD be up for it?
>
>     Any opinions? Volunteers?
>
>     Positive: It would force each of the similarities/differences to be
>     worked out one by one. For example:
>     Micropub - form-encoding and extensibility
>     SoLiD - Working with ActivityStreams
>
>     Negative: Might create a "Frankenstein" monster that no-one will
>     implement.
>
>     My advise to avoid the negative would be to use the user-stories to
>     guide us and 'pave the cowpaths' in existing specs where there are
>     similarities, keeping the spec minimalistic.
>
>     cheers,
>     harry
>
>
>
>
>