Re: ActivityPub editor's draft

Any update on these flags and link updates? I am clicking around and I have to admit I myself am more than a little confused. I just commented on the issue about backlinking.

I think my preference is that SocialCG editors-drafting work happen in a SocialCG repo and be served from a URL that makes clear it was CG publication, and be periodically reviewed on CG calls; having all these PRs and issues and commits in the old w3c WG repo and updating the referents of old URLs feels wrong in a few ways, except to add a link to the editor's draft.

In addition to the optics others have mentioned, I also wonder about IPR and IPR self-censorship-- if I were an invited expert from the CG and not a W3C member, I wouldn't feel comfortable opening a PR on the w3c repo, or even making substantial suggestions in a GH thread?

To Aaron Gray's question in another branch of this thread, YES, anyone subscribed to this list (and thus reading this email) should be able open issues and comment on threads around proposed amendments! Ideally, anyone could join the CG tomorrow and only have to watch one repo in the github/swicg/ repos listing to be notified of any PRs containing normative changes (even if only in the editor's draft!), without having to also follow the /w3c/activitypub/ repo outside the CG's forgespace?

Apologies if what i'm asking for is a headache with the w3c publication pipelines, which are probably more complicated than I'm assuming.

Thanks,
__bumble

---
bumblefudge
janitor [@Chain Agnostic Standards Alliance](https://github.com/chainagnostic/CASA)
contractable via [learningProof UG](https://learningproof.xyz)
mostly berlin-based

On Wednesday, February 7th, 2024 at 1:03 PM, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:

> There are some flags we can set to get it to say it's from the CG. I will talk to Philippe about it.
>
> Evan
>
> On February 7, 2024 1:53:13 p.m. EST, Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Understood, yeah. And my suggestion is - we do have a pressing need. When a developer sees the E.D. is served from the w3c/activitypub repo, that implies that it's still stewarded by the WG, which is not the case.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 11:37 PM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:
>>
>>> It's actually linked from the published recommendation:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
>>>
>>> So I think we should keep it where it is, unless there's a pressing need.
>>>
>>> Evan
>>>
>>> On 2024-02-06 4:25 p.m., Dmitri Zagidulin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Evan,
>>>> Thanks again for kicking this off, I'm incredibly excited about AP getting an ongoing Editors Draft.
>>>>
>>>> One change that I'd like to propose, though -- can we move the AP Editor's Draft to the SWICG github org?
>>>> We don't want incoming developers to be confused that the SWICG-stewarded changes represent the old WG's work.
>>>> Meaning, we can add a link to the top of the TR that says something like work is continuing at the SWICG, here's link to editor's draft, etc.
>>>> It'll also help with the governance of the E.D., since most of us in the group don't have access to the WG's repo.
>>>>
>>>> Dmitri
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:48 PM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a new ActivityPub editor's draft available here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/
>>>>>
>>>>> It's based on incorporating errata that have accumulated over the past
>>>>> few years. It has no other changes. Changelog here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changelog
>>>>>
>>>>> There are issues with the introductory data, and ReSpec is grumpy about
>>>>> some of the metadata elements. I'm going to see what I can do to improve
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to everyone who helped make this draft better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evan