Re: SWICG Special Topic Call (Nov : AP/AS2 Errata Issues [via Social Web Incubator Community Group]

Melvin,

Although the title is "Living spec/editor's draft", the proposal text says:

 > Incorporate the existing errata for the ActivityPub spec into an 
updated Editor's Draft.

...and the words "living spec" aren't used elsewhere.

Can you live with updating the current editor's draft with the new 
errata decided at the meeting? And removing the misleading title "Living 
Spec" from the minutes?

All the errata changes discussed at the meeting have been in the GitHub 
issue list for many weeks, sometimes months. You can see the issues that 
need group input here:

https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Needs+Group+Input%2FDecision%22

Evan

On 2023-11-19 11:52 p.m., Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> pá 17. 11. 2023 v 16:39 odesílatel Dmitri Zagidulin 
> <dzagidulin@gmail.com> napsal:
>
>     Minutes from the call are available at:
>     https://github.com/swicg/meetings/tree/main/2023-11-17
>
>
> From what I can see 5 people attneded, and 3 of the 5 voted in the 
> section Titled: "Living Spec Editors Draft"
>
> https://github.com/swicg/meetings/tree/main/2023-11-17#living-spec--editors-draft
>
> I dont think that is enough consensus to turn ActivityPub from what it 
> is today, into a living spec.
>
> Two concerns:
>
> 1. diversity and inclusion: only 3 people voted on this, in an 
> ecosystem of millions, I would much prefer for socialhub, at a 
> minimum, to be in the critical path and approval process of any living 
> spec
> 2. definition errata: this has not been clearly defined and I think 
> could lead to a slippery slope.  Pierre had some definitions of class 
> 1/2/3 change and I think any change needs to be categorized as type 1, 
> type 2 or type 3.  Then there needs to be a workflow, once again, 
> including socialhub.
>
> -1 from me for now, unless consensus around a living spec can be 
> achieved that also has unanimous buy-in from social hub
>
>
>
>     Everyone should feel free to review the Errata discussion in the
>     minutes and the linked issues, in case there are any objections.
>     (The Editors will be adding the proposed Errata text to the Errata
>     document after a week, if there are no objections.)
>
>     On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:35 AM W3C Community Development Team
>     <team-community-process@w3.org> wrote:
>
>         Hi everyone,
>
>
>
>         The next SWICG special topic call will be held Friday November
>         17, 2023, where the editors would like to gather community
>         input on the various AP/AS2 issues marked with the Needs Group
>         Input/Decision tag.
>
>
>
>         The call will be held at 9am ET / 6am PT / 3pm CET, at:
>
>
>
>         https://meet.jit.si/social-web-cg
>
>
>
>         Rough agenda:
>
>
>
>
>         IP Protection Note Reminder:a. Anyone can participate in these
>         calls. However, all substantive contributors to any CG Work
>         Items must be members of the CG with full IPR agreements
>         signed. https://www.w3.org/community/socialcg/joinb. To
>         contribute to Work Items: ensure you have a W3 account:
>         https://www.w3.org/accounts/request, and sign the W3C
>         Community Contributor License Agreement (CLA):
>         https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/
>
>
>
>         ActivityPub Errata issues
>
>
>
>         ActivityStreams2 Errata issues
>
>
>
>
>         As usual, please feel free to join the discussion directly on
>         the issues, on Github.
>
>
>
>         ----------
>
>         This post sent on Social Web Incubator Community Group
>
>
>
>         'SWICG Special Topic Call (Nov : AP/AS2 Errata Issues'
>
>         https://www.w3.org/community/socialcg/2023/11/16/swicg-special-topic-call-nov-ap-as2-errata-issues/
>
>
>
>         Learn more about the Social Web Incubator Community Group:
>
>         https://www.w3.org/community/socialcg
>
>