Re: Split off ActivityPub CG or WG

ne 1. 10. 2023 v 20:49 odesílatel Christine Lemmer-Webber <
cwebber@dustycloud.org> napsal:

> 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.
>

+1. It's prudent for ActivityPub to form a dedicated group, aligning
efforts with the broader-scope SWICG. Since SWXG's inception in 2007, the
social web's evolution has been considerable.

With its current adoption, ActivityPub is well-positioned to thrive
independently, with the SWICG maintaining a wider perspective.


>
> Just my opinions,
>  - Christine
>
>