Re: AS2/AP tasks for a chartered social web working group

pá 15. 9. 2023 v 19:47 odesílatel Johannes Ernst <johannes.ernst@gmail.com>
napsal:

> This may be a heretical question, but here it comes:
>
> On Sep 15, 2023, at 08:54, James <jamesg@jamesg.blog> wrote:
>
> I am in full agreement with regard to maintaining existing specifications
> being a primary focus of the group. To be clear, this would be:
>
>
>    1. ActivityPub
>    2. ActivityStreams
>    3. Linked Data Notifications
>    4. Micropub
>    5. Webmention
>    6. WebSub
>
> Historically, I can understand that all these specs ended up in the same
> WG — it didn’t know exactly what sausage it would make when it started, and
> only by starting down the road did it eventually find out.
>
> However, today we know that the ActivityPub stack, and the
> IndieWeb/Webmention stack, by and large are entirely independent of each
> other. While there is some code that implements both (notably brid.gy),
> there are no actual cross-dependencies that I’m aware of. E.g., to my
> knowledge, nobody sends ActivityStreams over Webmention.
>
> Would it make more sense to charter two separate groups? In my view, this
> would help in several ways:
>
> * More focus and less distraction for each group
> * Higher ability to attract contributors. If I’m interested in Stack X and
> not in Stack Y, I’m much more likely to spend an hour in a meeting that
> only talks about Stack X, than in one that spends half of its time on a
> Stack I’m not interested in.
> * It would reduce potential tension in the group(s) that, based on my
> (not-first-hand by any stretch) understanding, were, shall we say, a
> limiting factor in the past in the social WG.
>

It would in theory make sense to charter two groups, but historically
they've been in the same space with the same user stories.  Indieweb,
though relatively small, add a lot of energy to the group.  Having had
their protocols documented at REC standard imho has been beneficial, with
no real downsides.  This can be argued either way, but I'd personally
welcome a joint effort.

In addition Tantek, who chaired the last group, undoubtedly brought a lot
of passion and energy to things.  They did tend to vote in a block for
things they liked, but even that didnt turn out too badly in the end.

Leads us to the question of picking 3 chairs.  2 natural choices would be
Evan and Tantek who have done this before.  And perhaps another, that is
from an existing large fediverse deployment such as mastodon or threads.

There were also lots of user stories in the last WG which were deferred to
"later" ie the next WG.  Some of these may be picked up again.

WG User Stories: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories

WG More User Stories:
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/More_user_stories


>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Johannes.
>
> Johannes Ernst
>
> Fediforum <https://fediforum.org/>
> Dazzle <https://dazzle.town/>
>
>