Re: Next WG-CG call is tomorrow, plus minutes for May 1 call

Hi everyone,

I will represent Mastodon in this taskforce, as soon as it is formed.

Cheers,
Pia

On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 12:16 PM emelia <emelia@brandedcode.com> wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> Someone else may correct me on this but task forces usually don't do that
> type of outreach, the outreach that they do do is typically "what can we do
> to make this specification text more likely to be adopted by you?"
>
> The type of outreach you're describing typically happens in parallel to
> standards track work; being the lead, co-lead, etc of a task force does
> help give you reputation or social standing to more easily do that work,
> but it's not something within the purview of task forces typically. (Also
> just to clarify, working on a task force is unpaid, unless you get a grant
> from somewhere to cover your work)
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> — Emelia
>
> On 21. May 2026, at 06:50, Jim DeLaHunt <list+w3c@jdlh.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Emilia:
>
> Agreed, the framing is slightly different. I probably should have picked a
> different word than "internationalisation", because to me it means "ensure
> that the architecture and specs permit non-Latin characters in handles".
> What I want to do is partly outreach, finding users who want those
> non-Latin characters and developers who want to equip them with software;
> and partly advocacy, asserting that non-Latin characters ought to exist in
> Fediverse handles and actively trying to make that happen.
>
> If a task force with mandate #1 and my more expansive #2 is on offer, and
> if there are wise people willing to hold my hand as I figure out how things
> are done here, then yes, I'm willing to [co-]lead such a task force.
>
> Cheers,
>     —Jim
> On 2026-05-20 20:15, Emelia S. wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> So my framing is different, the taskforce is "Taskforce For Handles" to
> formalize that, and as part of the "architectural weaknesses" (1) I'm
> including the lack of internationalization (2). So the taskforce is
> explicitly doing both, because in today's W3C a CG/WG report that does not
> take into account internationalization would not pass to standardization.
>
> We need to define handles before we can strictly internationalize them,
> but part of defining them is making sure that are internationlized.
>
> Jim, Would you be willing to co-lead a taskforce with mandate of #1 + #2 ?
> I would be willing to act as "as I have time co-lead" (which is difficult
> for me). If I had time and money, I'd volunteer to lead myself, but I
> don't, so I need other people to setup up to help lead and do much the the
> day-to-day and I can help with process things.
>
> — Emelia
>
> On 21 May 2026, at 04:48, Jim DeLaHunt <list+w3c@jdlh.com>
> <list+w3c@jdlh.com> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I plan to attend the joint WG-CG call on May 21. I am interested in the
> "task force for the internationalisation of handles" topic.
>
> As far as I understand the state of discussion, there are is a question of
> mandate and a question of leader duty. I described my interests in
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2026May/0013.html>
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2026May/0013.html>.
>
> I hear two mandates being discussed: 1. work on architectural weaknesses
> related to handles, 2. work on internationalisation issues, some of which
> are non-technical, some of which are technical and involve handles. Can one
> task force take on both mandates? Should there be two task forces?  Can we
> collectively make progress on both at once? I suggest that this might be a
> possible discussion topic tomorrow.
>
> I am willing to lead a task force which includes mandate #2, although with
> the reservation that I am new here and know little about this group and the
> Fediverse processes. I am willing to be a member of, but not a leader of, a
> task force which has mandate #1 but not #2. I will have a lot to learn
> about the architecture and its weaknesses. Who else are potential leaders,
> and task force members? This might also be a possible discussion topic
> tomorrow.
>
> I look forward to talking to you all tomorrow.
>      —Jim DeLaHunt
>
> On 2026-05-20 13:16, emelia wrote:
>
> I thought I had formally proposed a handles taskforce, I just couldn't
> lead it, but I could be a shadow lead to help a less experienced lead with
> process/practice. There were iirc several others interested in co-chairing?
>
> Emelia
>
> On 20. May 2026, at 20:12, Darius Kazemi <darius.kazemi@gmail.com>
> <darius.kazemi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies for getting this to you so late but I have the minutes from the
> May 1 joint WG-CG call available here:
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/socialwg/blob/main/meetings/2026/2026-05-01-CG-WG-joint.md
>
> Thanks again to Evan for scribing.
>
> Some highlights:
>
>  - Discussion around the legal issues w/r/t FEPs being used as inputs
> <https://github.com/w3c/socialwg/blob/main/meetings/2026/2026-05-01-CG-WG-joint.md#participation-without-cla>
> to W3C specs. There's now a related issue on the FEP repo
> <https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/issues/844>
>  - Discussion of a proposal for formation of a task force for
> internationalization of handles
> <https://github.com/w3c/socialwg/blob/main/meetings/2026/2026-05-01-CG-WG-joint.md#task-force-for-internationalization-of-handles>.
> We need volunteers to step up and formally propose this on the CG mailing
> list who would also be interested in leading the task force.
>
> The May 21 joint call is tomorrow, and the agenda template is here:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/socialwg/issues/10
>
> Please comment on the issue if you'd like something added to the agenda.
>
> Thanks,
> Darius Kazemi
> Chair, W3C Social Web WG
>
> --
> .    --Jim DeLaHunt @jdlh@mstdn.ca, Vancouver, Canada
>
>
> --
> .    --Jim DeLaHunt @jdlh@mstdn.ca, Vancouver, Canada
>
>