Re: Split off ActivityPub CG or WG

We do have an ActivityPub Community Group -- a Special Interest Group 
actually, in the form of the SocialHub.

If Aaron Parecki thinks it's good to keep the SocialCG and work with 
ActivityPub within a broader context of the Social Web protocols, then I 
see no reason to split again. We can continue ActivityPub ground work on 
the SocialHub, relay to the SocialCG and get the best of both worlds.

The SocialHub was created to give momentum to the ActivityPub community 
following the ActivityPub Conference held in Prague in 2019, and 
organized very generously by Sebastian Lasse. It was a great success and 
we anticipated much work to do that would become much noise for the 
SocialCG mailing-list, since this list was larger than just ActivityPub.

If now the people we wanted to avoid spamming are fine with getting the 
heat, I see no reason to move away and apart. On the contrary, I feel 
like we are in a situation where we have a real grassroots community 
that is grounded in free software and works on Codeberg and the 
SocialHub, and a standards-oriented community group who can relay and 
give body to already chewed on ground work. This is the best situation 
we can imagine, where the grassroots implementors lead the way and the 
standards-oriented people renders that body of work normative.

I am not a driving force in the specification process, so I'm happy 
whatever decision is made, but I want to underline both the grassroots 
effort that have been going on over the last four years around the 
SocialHub, as well as the renewed interests by the Chair to consolidate 
the normative form of ActivityPub and ActivityStreams. This is a great 
opportunity to engage more people with more confidence in the process, 
and not isolate other protocols that, if they are less visible, are no 
less important to our common success.

==
hk

Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2023 07:22:00 UTC