Re: Split off ActivityPub CG or WG

Thanks, Aaron, for adding your point of view.

Would you have the same objection to a Fediverse-focused WG or 
Fediverse-focused CG? What makes this such a wicked problem is that I 
don't think we have consensus on the boundaries of the Fediverse, which 
is why some are more comfortable scoping normative work to the AP data 
model and leaving out of scope what was out of scope in 2019.  I would 
not argue make the claim that AP === Fediverse, nor would I claim that 
SocialWeb === Fediverse. And I would go so far as to propose that the 
map of the Fediverse and the Social Web would look more like two 
concentric circles than a Venn diagram.

I feel like we keep mixing up orthogonal issues, like whether specs from 
other communities should be profiled or incorporated normatively, and if 
profiled rather than normatively required, if those profiles should come 
from an interop-focused Social Web group or from the group updating the 
AP specs.  At least there seems to be consensus that regardless of what 
new group gets created, the SocialWeb CG should survive and should still 
incubate extensions, profiles, and interoperability tooling.

Thanks,
__juan/bumble

On 10/3/2023 5:35 PM, Aaron Parecki wrote:
> -1
>
> 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
>
>