Re: ActivityPub editor's draft

Replies to Juan!

/Any update on these flags and link updates? /

Yes, they were recently updated. 
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/commit/fc686a1be9f8eb006d833fb6a6244e3b5d3b5b4e

/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./

Thanks! That problem needs to be fixed.

/I think my preference is that SocialCG editors-drafting work happen in 
a SocialCG repo/

The repository is now controlled by the CG, and the chairs have admin 
access!

/and be served from a URL that makes clear it was CG publication/

It says "final community group report" at the top.

https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/

/and be periodically reviewed on CG calls;/

We do issue triage each Wednesday in an official CG meeting.

When there are changes to the actual documents to be made, they're 
decided in the main CG calls.

Typically, that means changing the ERRATA, and then incorporating those 
errata into the document.

/ having all these PRs and issues and commits in the old w3c WG repo and 
updating the referents of old URLs/

I don't understand this. What do you mean by "referents of old URLs"?

/feels wrong in a few ways, except to add a link to the editor's draft.
/

I'm sorry it feels wrong to you. The main document at 
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/ links to the editor's draft at 
https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/ and it has for almost 10 years.

/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?/

So, you don't have to be a member of a WG to make issues or comments on 
a w3c working group document, and I don't think you need to do it for CG 
docs, either.

I don't think we've ever taken contributions directly from a GitHub 
comment or thread.

We've had hundreds of issues posted on AP and AS2; I am sure there is 
some self-censorship, but it's definitely not slowing down the 
contributions.

/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!
/

I highly recommend reviewing the content of the new README file. It 
describes how we maintain these stable, published documents:

https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/blob/gh-pages/README.md

/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?/

We don't actually make changes to these published documents with PRs 
very often, and making normative changes to these docs would be a real 
mistake.

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

So, we've had the documents in their w3c repositories for a decade now. 
I really don't want to move them somewhere else. It feels like a huge 
amount of busy work. The SocialCG is called out as the responsible body 
in the text of the ED, and I think that should be enough. I don't think 
people recognize the difference between w3c.github.io and swicg.github.io.

If we form a working group for these documents, we'd need to move them 
back to w3c namespace anyway. Can you live with just leaving the long 
history, issues lists, inbound links, etc. etc. of this repository where 
it is? It feels like a huge amount of effort that would be better spent 
on other things.

Evan

On 2024-03-18 4:02 p.m., bumblefudge von CASA wrote: