Re: Scope for a possible new SocialWeb (AP/AS2) W3C Working Group charter

Melvin wrote:

> "But will there be breaking fixes, for hte major bugs?"


Limiting the scope to addressing eratta would tend to reduce the risk of
breaking fixes.

bob wyman


On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 1:29 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> út 19. 9. 2023 v 13:20 odesílatel Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
> napsal:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Over the past week or so, there's been some great discussion (both <a
>> href="https://www.w3.org/2023/09/12-social-minutes.html">at TPAC</a> and
>> on the <a href="https://mastodon.social/@bengo/111070439501615412">fediverse</a>)
>> about whether to work with W3C to charter a new Working Group (for example,
>> for spec maintenance and errata purposes, although other scopes have been
>> discussed as well).
>>
>
> I think it's important to get consensus as to whether working on a charter
> is a work item for the group
>
>
>>
>> I'd like to assure some of the concerned community members that a Working
>> Group is not an end in and of itself. It's just a tool (admittedly, a
>> heavyweight and powerful one) to accomplish the goals of the community. And
>> so, it makes sense to discuss and vote on specific scopes to a potential WG
>> charter, and only kick off the process if there's agreement on those scopes.
>>
>
> Scope is unlikely to be decided in an 1 hour meeting.  The SWXG was about
> 3 years of work which was then a long period before the SWWG was chartered.
>
>
>>
>> Here's my example scope proposal, to start the discussion:
>>
>> The SocialCG and the Fediverse community propose chartering a W3C Working
>> Group for the purposes of specification maintenance of the ActivityPub and
>> ActivityStreams 2 specifications.
>>
>> In scope:
>>
>> * Integrating the errata and fixes that have accumulated to the AP/AS2
>> specs.
>> * Minor normative changes or clarifications to those specs that document
>> extensive implementation experience, and have agreement from the community.
>>
>
> +1
>
> I guess the main discussion will be as to whether a new version of AP or
> AS will be worked on, in the next few years.  Consensus so far seems to be
> no breaking changes.  But will there be breaking fixes, for hte major
> bugs?  Does this warrant a minor or major version number.
>
> I guess these things can be worked out in the coming months.  It will also
> need wide review from the existing eco system.
>
>
>>
>> Out of scope:
>>
>> * Authentication and identity
>> * Portability profiles (profile import/export).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>