Working Group: maintenance vs active work

Reviewing the potential charters for a WG in https://github.com/swicg/potential-charters/, I notice that both ap-maintenance-wg-charter.html and social-web-maintenance-wg-charter.html focus exclusively on maintenance, and exclude new functionality.

That sounds a bit like we’ve declared the End of History in standard-based social web interoperability. All the world needs is maybe five computers, perhaps?

New requirements will pop up and innovations will occur in the market. Where do we want people to go if they would like to turn over their invention to an open standard body?

Seems to me that if SocialWG is not open for new work, they will go elsewhere. I would consider this a suboptimal outcome.

Cheers,




Johannes.


Johannes Ernst

Fediforum <https://fediforum.org/>
Dazzle Labs <https://dazzlelabs.net/>