Re: SWICG CG Charter

When you say "the charter", which do you mean?  We're hoping to get a CG
charter ratified soon, and the "staging process" also shipped fairly soon,
before normative scope.  All the "new scope" you're talking about would
probably have to go to one or more of the WG Charter drafts, right?

------------------------------
Juan Caballero, PhD.
Freelance <https://www.caballerojuan.com> researcher, consultant, and free
thinker
Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351
Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525, CET/UTC+2
Native: English, Español; Functional: Deutsch, Français, Português


On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 4:48 PM Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I think we all own many thanks to Evan for taking on the whole of the
> Issue Triage process and getting ActivityPub and ActivityStreams into a
> state to go forwards.
>
> I do go with Tamtek's approach to this but would also like to bring up the
> following.
>
> Charter remit. Domain, coverage, and scope.
>
> There are many inherent problems in both AP/AS and also in Social Media as
> a medium, there are also social-political, political, commercial versus
> non-commercial and also between individual protocols, implementations, and
> implementers.
>
> I would like us to pave the way for the standards to go far far beyond the
> microblogging Twitter level of Social Media and for The Charter to reflect,
> allow, and prepare the way for this.
>
> To do this I think we need to bring a server "capabilities" model into
> ActivityPub/ActivityStreams where webfinger can get both supported
> ActivityStreams extensions, and also a set of supported media types, this
> can default to the existing ActivityStreams 2 context, and be an array of
> supported contexts and terms.
>
> There is a tension between the usage of just JSON based packets and
> JSON-LD based, this reflects levels of complexity for implementers and in
> implementations and needs to be resolved by the CG and WG and not swept
> under the carpet and for us to shy away from this or hide intentions for
> the sake of one camp or another.
>
> Server management on a technical, social, and political level is not part
> of the standard(s) and really needs examining properly, the existing
> implementations and solutions. How well can this be documented, formalized,
> and standardized will be an interesting problem, but I think we need to
> bring this whole area into the fold and reflect this in the charter.
>
> This may all be opening a can of worms, and hope this is not ignored, but
> I really think we need a wider remit and scope, and this will be necessary
> in order for the standards and future standard to keep up with and in fact
> lead the field. paving the way for creating and nurturing Social Media,
> Networking, and Collaboration Systems, which will emergently become a
> continuum.
>
> From looking at the charter most of what I am presenting here would end up
> in the Out of Scope section.
>
> The reasoning behind me bringing all this up, is having seen a wider view
> and longer term context to both the web and social media's development. We
> are still stuck in an infancy of 20 years of FaceBook's user interface, and
> 18 years of Twitter/X'es user interface and functionality not really
> changing to any degree, and in fact with the case of FaceBook's even being
> retrograde.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Aaron
>
> --
> Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org | @aaronngray@threads.net
>
> Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher
> and Designer, Amateur Type Theorist, Amatuer Computer Scientist,
> Environmentalist and Climate Science Researcher and Disseminator.
>
>