Re: Split off ActivityPub CG or WG

po 2. 10. 2023 v 15:40 odesílatel Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
napsal:

> Hey, Christine!
>
> So, I disagree.
>
> Setting up a separate CG would take a lot of time and effort. It would
> cost us momentum. The SocialCG is the current steward of the AP and AS2
> specs, so we would need to figure out how to transfer that responsibility
> to a new group.
>

Establishing a separate CG may not pose as much of a challenge as
anticipated, given that a foundation already exists with a significant
membership base, as seen here: https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/activitypub/.
Much like the revitalization of the SWICG, reactivating the AP group could
be a straightforward endeavor. With its inception dating back to 2012, the
sustained interest over the years underscores a solid premise for its
reactivation. Joining the group is a simple process, making the transition
relatively seamless while retaining our focus and momentum.


>
> The downside seems low. Most of the work that happens in this group is
> around AP and AS2. I haven't felt swamped by discussion of the other
> SocialCG recs.
>
> One service we offer to the fediverse is a stable core of specs,
> maintained by a group with established authority. Instability right now
> undermines that at a crucial time for the fediverse, without sufficient
> upside.
>
> Rather than an unnecessary administrative shuffle, let's focus on better
> actual outputs -- testing, data portability, extensions, user safety --
> from the SocialCG.
>
> Evan
>
> On Oct 1, 2023 14:42, Christine Lemmer-Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>