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

Thank you for sharing this list, Dmitri!

To echo what Dmitri stated, a WG is not an end unto itself.

With that said, this is an opportunity for us to progress several pieces of standards work based on our years of learning and seeing standards implemented and used in the real world.

On the topic of scope, I would like us to consider the following:


1.  Incubating rel=me as a W3C Note. IANA added rel=me to its link registry yesterday (https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml). A lot of work has been done with rel=me but not all of it codified into a single, refined document.
2.  Advancing IndieAuth from a Note to a Standards Track document. IndieAuth now has at least a dozen client and server implementations, with supporting infrastructure implemented in at least seven programming languages (see a list of client, server, and library implementations at https://indieweb.org/IndieAuth).
3.  Advancing Microsub to a Standards Track document. Microsub has five client and seven documented server implementations (https://indieweb.org/Microsub).
    

4.  Private posts on the web. Initial work has been done in this regard with TicketAuth (https://indieweb.org/IndieAuth_Ticket_Auth), although has failed to garner additional efforts over the years. There are at least five implementations by separate people, but I would need to hear explicitly that at least a few people would be interested in advancing this work. I believe in this initiative because of its utility: web-native private posts address a gap in expression on the web that has not been covered to the same extent as public posts.
    

5.  Micropub extensions with multiple interoperable implementations for inclusion in the main specification (https://github.com/indieweb/micropub-extensions).


Much work has been done over the years to advance ideas, with documentation, Issues, implementations, usage, community discussion and code as proof of said advancement, links to which can be found by browsing relevant links on the afore-linked pages.

I do recognize that the above is a lot. These are my ideas, not a position. I would love input on what I have said above. I further invite input to all other threads on this topic, too; a lot of meaningful discussion has occured.

James


------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, September 19th, 2023 at 12:19, Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com> wrote:


> 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'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.
> 

> 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.
> 

> Out of scope:
> 

> * Authentication and identity
> * Portability profiles (profile import/export).
> 

> Thanks!