Re: Split off ActivityPub CG or WG

BTW, I agree with Evan: the CG *is* the home of ActivityPub currently.

I made the suggestion to make a separate CG or WG for ActivityPub is
mainly to provide more focus within the standards process, and it was
primarily a suggestion about if a WG was made in particular.  It could
be that this is a *sub-group* or outgrowth of the SocialCG, but I am
also okay with it not happening.  I appreciate the massive amount of
work Evan is doing organizing and reviving the CG right now, by the way.

But I see the "official home" of the specification, and the authority of
what constitutes ActivityPub, as the SocialCG at present.  I think
SocialHub is an excellent place to coordinate, and works with the
SocialCG.  But the SocialCG is where AP's editing authority resides, and
I think that's good and appropriate and it was designed to be that way.

 - Christine

Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> writes:

> 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.
>
> 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

Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2023 18:12:21 UTC