Re: Should the specs be forked and maintained elsewhere?

On 23/03/2023 10:47, mail@sebastianlasse.de wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> please see the old _https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/c/meeting/11_ 
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/c/meeting/11>
>
>
> We tried our best to organise (thanks, bengo, Will Murphy, Chris Moser, )
>
> Before we could not announce meetings anymore on socialhub,
>
Note also that relatively recently, W3C has setup its own calendar 
service, which exports ICS feeds that you can subscribe to in your 
favorite calendar app:

https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/socialcg/calendar/


CG chairs should have permission to add events there.

> the last 12 monthly meetings were:
>
>
> AUG 22 _fedi.camp_ <https://fedi.camp/>
>
> JUL holidays
>
> JUN 22 
> _https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/developers-meeting-6-groups-and-improving-c2s-ended/2480_ 
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/developers-meeting-6-groups-and-improving-c2s-ended/2480>
>
> MAY 22 _https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/c/meeting/11_ 
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/c/meeting/11>
>
> APR 22 
> _https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/developers-meeting-4-context/2368_ 
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/developers-meeting-4-context/2368>
>
> MAR 22 
> _https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/developers-meeting-3-groups-2/2341_ 
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/developers-meeting-3-groups-2/2341>
>
> FEB 22 
> _https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/developers-meeting-2-groups/2302_ 
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/developers-meeting-2-groups/2302>
>
> JAN 22 
> _https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/interconnective-networks-open-development-starts-today/2259_ 
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/interconnective-networks-open-development-starts-today/2259>
>
> DEC 21 
> _https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/developers-meeting-1-in-2022/2223_ 
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/developers-meeting-1-in-2022/2223>
>
> 2021 
> _https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/2021-05-07-socialcg-meeting/1697_ 
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/2021-05-07-socialcg-meeting/1697> 
> ff
>
>
> In OCT, NOV, January 23 and February 23 we had meetings which are not 
> on socialhub. The last 2 were about a generic server.
>
>
> Then I had to shift the resources for me, soI am organising the next 
> ActivityPub meeting for Europes largest broadcaster ZDF with regards 
> to 
> _https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/public-broadcasters-create-public-spaces-incubator/_ 
> <https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/public-broadcasters-create-public-spaces-incubator/>
>
> Some larger projects might fork it too, we should stick together 
> because if e.g. any TV-Tax payer of Germany (45 mio.) gets a fedi 
> account it should be compatible and interoperable.
>
>
> About the issues:
>
> Only 1 has the power about the domain which is often the underlying issue.
>
> E.g. when the subdomain for the validator is lost, where to put the 
> new validator?
>
> This has many dups, see 
> _https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/351#issuecomment-1157272481_ 
> <https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/351#issuecomment-1157272481>
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Sebastian Lasse, redaktor
>
> ActivityPub Confs: _https://redaktor.me/_ <https://redaktor.me/>
>
>
> Am 23. März 2023 um 05:01 schrieb "Melvin Carvalho" 
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com 
> <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com?to=%22Melvin%20Carvalho%22%20%3Cmelvincarvalho%40gmail.com%3E>>:
>
>
>
>     st 22. 3. 2023 v 17:36 odesílatel Pierre-Antoine Champin
>     <pierre-antoine@w3.org> napsal:
>
>         Dear all,
>
>         chiming in as an ActivityPub enthusiast and as a member of the
>         W3C team,
>
>             I agree that regular meetings would be a good idea, but I don't think the
>             specs necessarily need to be forked to be maintained, even though they're
>             in TR status and don't see active updates.
>
>         As a matter of fact, the W3C process has evolved in the past
>         year, in order to allow a spec to be updated (under certain
>         limits) without the existence of a working group:
>
>
>
>         https://beta.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#revised-rec-editorial

>         (see 2nd paragraph, "If there is no working group...)
>
>
>         What it means is that you (the SocialCG) can definitely
>         propose editorial changes to the existing specs, and reach out
>         to a team member (as myself) to get the recommendation updated.
>
>         This can only cover non-substansive changes, i.e. typos,
>         clarifications... but nothing that would require implementers
>         to change their code. In the case where technical issues have
>         been detected, however, it is still possible to include notes
>         about them, and pointers to proposed solutions (that would
>         only be informative at this point, but at least would be
>         visible to anyone reading the updated spec).
>
>         The Community Group being the successor of the Working Group,
>         I believe that we can arrange for providing permissions on the
>         relevant github repositories
>         (https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams and
>         https://github.com/w3c/activitypub) so that you can triage and
>         clean up issues as you see fit.
>
>         Finally, if the CG feels like a new version of ActivityPub is
>         required (including substantive changes), we can also discuss
>         the chartering of a new Working Group to take up this task.
>
>         It's great to see this group active and motivated! If you
>         start having regular meetings again, I can't commit to follow
>         them all, but I'm more than happy to try and join every now
>         and then, and discuss those opportunities with you.
>
>
>     A new version of ActivityPub might be a good thing, based on
>     implementation experience.  There was also a bunch of stuff in the
>     Social Web Working Group that got pushed into future timelines.
>
>           pa
>
>               Very few suggestions have
>             been made about actual practical improvements to the spec—the vast, vast
>             majority of open Github issues are usage questions that have been
>             addressed. Regarding the FEP process, while it has generated a lot of
>             productive discussion, it's less clear to me that it's been effective at
>             generating multi-implementor consensus, which is in my mind the most
>             important goal of a specification workgroup. I'm not aware of any currently
>             active FEP that got discussion from multiple implementers and then went on
>             to have multiple interoperable implementations.
>
>             Previously, the Community Group spent a lot of effort discussing and
>             working on "outreach"-focused initiatives that didn't move the ball forward
>             on technical integration. I think that's also a serious mistake that we
>             made in the past that we should learn from going forward. To my mind, what
>             we need to call a meeting is a concrete agenda of technical topics and an
>             actionable plan on *what* implementers or organizations are going to put in
>             the work to explore them or move them forward. We can't move forward as a
>             specification body without implementer buy-in and consensus.
>
>             I'm aware of implementer interest from Mastodon relevant to a few of the
>             topics I can see discussing: Reply approval, Groups. What other specific
>             technical topics do people feel like should end up on the agenda?
>
>             On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 6:56 PM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name  <mailto:evan@prodromou.name?Subject=Re%3A+Should+the+specs+be+forked+and+maintained+elsewhere%3F&In-Reply-To=%3CCAJY4u8Ed1NuNXBn9D_t%2BkDWJAgpg1USMPpr348wEc%3DJksQ34pA%40mail.gmail.com%3E>> wrote:
>
>             > Regular meetings would be great.
>             >
>             > On Mar 21, 2023, at 5:25 PM, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us  <mailto:bob@wyman.us?Subject=Re%3A+Should+the+specs+be+forked+and+maintained+elsewhere%3F&In-Reply-To=%3CCAJY4u8Ed1NuNXBn9D_t%2BkDWJAgpg1USMPpr348wEc%3DJksQ34pA%40mail.gmail.com%3E>> 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
>             >
>             >
>             >
>
>
>