Re: Regular SWICG meetings and CG process

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 20:12, Johannes Ernst <johannes.ernst@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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”)
>

I would love for existing implementers to get together and look at two
things :-

  1) Putting together an implementer's guide on a WIki.
  2) Distilling their interface code and unit tests (possibly working with
others) into reusable libraries and test suites. This will reduce future
workload, stop the reinvention of the wheel saving time and energy, and
increase compliance.


> 4. Profiles (e.g. a minimal subset)
> 5. Non-protocol work including
>   a) getting people involved (e.g. mastodon representation)
>   b) branding
>

This would have to be compliance based on passing a test suite.


>   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.
>

Yes definitely. I think we need different working groups.


>
> 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!!!
>

Nice !

There were only 17 mentioned in the minutes.

Aaron