Re: Should the specs be forked and maintained elsewhere?

Regular meetings would be great.

> On Mar 21, 2023, at 5:25 PM, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:
> 
> I've seen several suggestions that, due to inactivity in this group, it would make sense to fork either or both of the ActivityStreams and ActivityPub specs with the intent to develop them further and maintain them elsewhere. The most recent suggestion <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/should-we-fork-as-ap-specs-to-codeberg-create-vnext-drafts/3022> that I've seen was made in one of the forums on the ActivityRocks site.
> 
> My personal feeling is that the proper forum for maintenance of these W3C specs is within this community. Am I correct? However, I sympathize with others who feel that maintenance is simply not happening. There are now 55 open issues <https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues> on ActivityPub's GitHub repository and 58 open issues <https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues> on the ActivityStreams repository. Who is responsible for addressing those issues, closing them, or taking action on them? What is the process by which these decisions will be made?
> 
> Other W3C groups that I've worked with have regular Zoom or Jitsi meetings to discuss issues. Why doesn't this group ever have such meetings?
> 
> bob wyman
>