Re: IndieWeb Technologies in SWICG

The “ambiguity” here comes from the term “and related technologies”. Does it mean, closely related, like a direct dependency or an extension? Or does it mean loosely related, like trying to solve the same problem? I’d interpret it as the former.

> On Jun 27, 2023, at 5:47 PM, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:
> 
> Great question!
> 
> So, here’s what the description of the SocialCG says:
> 
> The SocialCG provides space to collaborate and coordinate for implementors who are building on any of the specifications published by the Social Web WG <https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/>, and related technologies. It is also a place to incubate new proposals which build on or complement the Social Web WG recommendations.
> 
> That, to me, sounds like our scope is: 
> 
> any of the six specs from the SocialWG (ActivityPub, Activity Streams 2.0, Linked Data Notifications, Micropub, WebMention, WebSub)
> Closely related technologies - maybe underlying technologies that like HTTP Signatures, JSON-LD or OAuth 2.0 for the AP/AS2 stack, SOLID more generally, and the IndieWeb suite more generally
> Extensions to any of these technologies
> 
> I think there’s some ambiguity about stacks that do social networking that aren’t derived from these stacks, like Nostr or BlueSky. My feeling is that, since there are other places to talk about those projects, and the primary authors are not participants here, it doesn’t make sense for us to work on them as a group.
> 
> For HTTP Signatures and OAuth 2.0, primary discussion should probably be at the IETF or other venues.
> 
> For JSON-LD, there’s a group at the W3C for it.
> 
> I think most SOLID work should happen in the SOLID CG, with maybe interop discussion happening here.
> 
> I think the IndieWeb community has a pretty good infrastructure for discussion, but if this is the best place for discussion of related specs, so be it!
> 
> So, in the most narrow sense, this is a good group for: our six specifications, extensions to them, and maybe some other parts of the IndieWeb suite.
> 
> I also think that, as a gut check, this is the work the world expects us to do.
> 
> Evan
> 
> 
>> On Jun 27, 2023, at 5:09 PM, James <jamesg@jamesg.blog> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello there,
>> 
>> I am James (jamesg.blog). Long time social web enthusiast, first time emailer.
>> 
>> I have been following the discussions on the chair discussions for the community and I was curious to start opening more discussions into a broader range of social web technologies. I am excited and invigorated by the work done to support ActivityPub, particularly given its prominence in the decentralised social web ecosystem. With that said, I am equally excited by approaches new and old: Webmentions, Bluesky, IndieAuth, and more.
>> 
>> I was curious to learn more about for whom the group is building, to assess ways in which I could potentially contribute. The Working Group had a rich history in incubating a range of technologies, from ActivityPub to Post Type Discovery to Webmention, all serving real needs. My expertise is more on the "IndieWeb" technologies incubated, but I find that is an unhelpful distinction. All the work the group does is part of the same goal: to discuss, incubate, implement, and document standards that enable richer social interactions on the web platform.
>> 
>> Ultimately, I am interested in contributing to work that delivers upon the needs of end users and helps to create a more decentralized web. 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> James<publickey - jamesg@jamesg.blog - 0xC06B40B5.asc>
>