Re: Should the specs be forked and maintained elsewhere?

čt 23. 3. 2023 v 10:47 odesílatel <mail@sebastianlasse.de> napsal:

> 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,
>
> 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>
>

It would appear to be beneficial to bring together those involved in the CG
to join in the already established social hub meetings

>
>
>
> 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
> <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 <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 <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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>