- From: Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 22:28:40 +0000
- To: bumblefudge von CASA <bumblefudge@learningproof.xyz>
- Cc: "public-swicg@w3.org" <public-swicg@w3.org>, Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
- Message-ID: <CAKXmGHDNgJN64KeMYZsoUGbvjonHYvMYBdRFxGnhDScWGjnq_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Evan, It is possible to deal with this issue before tomorrow :- https://github.com/swicg/general/issues/39 Thanks, Aaron On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 20:03, bumblefudge von CASA < bumblefudge@learningproof.xyz> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> > -- Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher, Information Theorist, and Computer Scientist.
Received on Monday, 18 March 2024 22:28:59 UTC