Re: Working Group: maintenance vs active work

i wanna +1 lisa's sentiment, and her "top 4" new feature clusters. some combination of maintenance-only work items AND A CG TO WG PIPELINE is the workflow im lobbying for, because it severs the wide-consensus research and candidate solution finding from the higher stakes cement-pouring. make the CG great again and don't let a WG overshadow it!

let 1000 PRs proposing and debating such combinations bloom!

---
bumblefudge
janitor @Chain Agnostic Standards Alliance
contractable via learningProof UG
mostly berlin-based

Sent from Proton Mail Android

-------- Original Message --------
On 11/2/24 1:41 AM, Lisa Dusseault  wrote:

> I'd love to see new features too - I think some new features are quite critical to the Fediverse working well. My personal list of most important new features, influenced by what people seem willing to work on as well as by importance:
>
> -
>
> Threaded conversations - addresses a functional lack in ActivityPub in how it shares forum-style conversations, despite frequently being used to do so.
>
> -
>
> Signed messages - addresses several issues in safety and identity management, especially given the very decentralized nature of the Fediverse
>
> -
>
> Account portability - also addresses issues in identity management, as well as allowing moderation to be more effective
>
> -
>
> Moderation load-sharing - addresses issues of safety in the Fediverse by making moderators more effective and more able to scale their work
>
> That said, all of these are a lot of work, and maintenance is even more time critical. My gut feeling is that all of this is too much and maintenance just on the ActivityPub/Stream core specs might be too little. But, it's often a good idea to start small and then add to scope as capacity and capability are demonstrated. Charters can be added to.
>
> Also, the bigger picture with the incubation process seems to be that the CG would have larger and expandable scope, with the ability to suggest new work items to some WG as they matured.
>
> Lisa
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 5:29 PM Johannes Ernst <johannes.ernst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/)