Re: Split off ActivityPub CG or WG

-1

I agree with Evan here.

ActivityPub does not exist in isolation. The ActivityPub specification
doesn't specify enough to build a functioning and interoperable
implementation of a social network. This is not a flaw, so don't interpret
this comment as such, it is just how it is.

In practice, a successful implementation of ActivityPub also incorporates
elements from many other communities. HTTP Signatures (IETF) provides the
server to server authentication mechanism. OAuth (IETF) is for clients to
servers. rel=me (Microformats) provides verified links in bios. Mastodon
has defined its own client to server API that has been implemented by
projects other than Mastodon despite the ActivityPub C2S API existing in
the spec.

Any future version of a specification for the Fediverse will need to
incorporate -- or at least reference and/or create profiles of -- these
other specifications.

Creating a group limited to only the ActivityPub specification is
short-sighted and will not be able to accomplish what it actually needs to
do to further the ecosystem.

---
Aaron Parecki


On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:40 AM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>