Re: Split off ActivityPub CG or WG

st 4. 10. 2023 v 14:26 odesílatel Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
napsal:

> SocialHub is a great place for CG members to chat.
>
> I think the FEP process is a great way to develop extensions.
>
> The core ActivityPub and Activity Streams 2.0 specs are maintained by this
> CG.
>

If we move to a 3 step process, with step one for new FEPs, step 2 maturing
FEPs, and step 3 is publishing things at the w3c, there will be a workflow.

Every CG has its own workflow, some with high friction and some with low
friction.  So there is room for different work flows depending on the
thoughts of the FEP author.  Community groups are the most casual of the
W3C groups and each determines its own rules.  New groups are designed to
be lightweight and easy to form, requiring only 6 approvals and a chair.
Anyone can propose and start a group, and publish CG reports.  It's purely
a matter of taste.

WG are a much higher bar.  We dont have a WG now, so we cant change any of
the previously published specs.  That can take months or even years to
charter and complete.  It's high friction.  However, the major issue with
Working Groups is that they lack inclusiveness and diversity.  Therefore,
how the REC track specs evolve is distinct problem from maturations of FEPs.


>
> Evan
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2023 03:21, hellekin <hellekin@cepheide.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>