Re: Regular SWICG meetings and CG process

On the call today, there was also the thought of having separate, smaller meetings focused on specific parts of the overall problem.

The main categories of subjects that I wrote down were mentioned today:

1. Core ActivityPub spec issues / improvements (e.g. use of HTTP content negotiation)
2. Significant potential extensions (e.g. cryptographic approaches to more privacy)
3. Documentation and testsuite(s):
  a) just for ActivityPub
  b) for the entire stack needed to achieve real-world interop (e.g. “will it show up in Mastodon”)
4. Profiles (e.g. a minimal subset)
5. Non-protocol work including
  a) getting people involved (e.g. mastodon representation)
  b) branding
  c) user experience
  d) a “Fediverse developer network"

Some of them clearly are outside of the historical scope of this group, but are necessary in the larger scheme of things, and this group is probably where the discussion on those needs to start.

It appears to make more sense to have specific meetings focused on one of those items at a time, rather than one meeting that attempt to cover all.

Does this sound roughly like the right categories of things, based on the discussion today?

P.S. Thanks everybody for coming! I counted 46 people!!!

Cheers,



Johannes.

Johannes Ernst
Blog: https://reb00ted.org/
FediForum: https://fediforum.org/
Dazzle: https://dazzle.town/


> On Mar 29, 2023, at 11:57, nightpool <eg1290@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would love to run/attend monthly meetings. As I have a full time job outside of the CG though, it will have to be on the weekends or outside of normal working hours.
> 
> Happy to also help out on the ticket queue Evan, I think I've been pretty active on it but I don't think I ever got added to the repositories in question when I was added as co-chair of the CG.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023, 1:50 PM Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com <mailto:dzagidulin@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I agree, let's do monthly meetings.
>> Which of course brings up the question of what date and time slot.
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 2:12 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us <mailto:bob@wyman.us>> wrote:
>>> Given the significant interest in restarting the process and given the issues identified, I would prefer monthly meetings rather than quarterly meetings. If monthly meetings turn out to be too frequent, or too infrequent, we can always adjust the schedule in the future. However, I am confident that quarterly meetings would be too infrequent to be useful at this point in time.
>>> 
>>> bob wyman