Re: Should the specs be forked and maintained elsewhere?

Sounds like there's interest in regular calls for the SocialWeb CG! :)
I agree that we should use Jitsi or Big Blue Button; Jitsi would probably
be the easiest.



On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:56 AM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:

> So, for AP and AS2, I think it's the authors. We're supposed to publish
> updates and errata.
>
> I can get in and start looking at these. I'll talk to the other authors.
> It's been a while!
>
> Evan
>
> On Mar 21, 2023 17:25, 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
>
>
>