- From: Christine Lemmer-Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2023 14:42:53 -0400
- To: public-swicg@w3.org
I'm not getting too involved. So, you can ignore me. I'm here in the background, peering vaguely, in the few moments I'm on top of my email (not often these days). But, if you want my advice... and maybe you don't... I think it's time for ActivityPub to break off into its own CG or WG. The SocialCG or WG, whatever happens, can be a thing that exists, and ActivityPub people can be part of it, but my experience with the SocialWG especially was that a lack of core agreement on what we were working on really made life incredibly difficult. We got some good work done, but... there's enough to do without needing to have the disagreements that come from not agreeing on fundamentals. I think if a re-invigorated set of ActivityPub work is to happen, do it in a new group devoted to that *explicit* purpose. You'll retain a lot more hair of everyone participating. Now... regarding the CG or WG process... well, it's been nice seeing just how well WebAssembly is doing with their CG process. That's given me hope. So I think Ben's suggestion is not bad. That said the SocialWG worked pretty well BECAUSE it was full of invited experts. But that was heavily frowned upon by the W3C at the time. If a WG were to happen, get buy-in to that idea up front. But yeah. ActivityPub CG/WG. Keep it focused. Let people get the hard work done they need to when already agreeing on a core basis. Otherwise else it's gonna be just like last time. And that took a few years off my lifespan. Just my opinions, - Christine
Received on Sunday, 1 October 2023 18:49:03 UTC