Re: Say charter one more time

ooh I love that question, and would like to know myself. personally I think what AP servers should share (and what AP clients, or non-AP systems they proxy to) can do with that graph are SUPER important topics this CG should explore. I'd argue we would do well to spec out portability a bit better before going there, but it's crucial!

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

Sent from Proton Mail Android

-------- Original Message --------
On 11/8/24 4:10 PM, Melvin Carvalho  wrote:

> pá 8. 11. 2024 v 16:53 odesílatel Tantek <tantek@tantek.com> napsal:
>
>> tl;dr: I also support PROPOSAL 2, for the reasons Sarven provides and explicitly expressing inclusiveness of implementers of heterogeneous systems that support multiple Social Web WG Recommendations (I count myself as one, with my personal site as a live example).
>>
>> We need to grow our "Team Open" as it were, in contrast to other efforts, whether closed, semi-open, or any combination thereof, and PROPOSAL 2 is the best way to do so.
>>
>> PROPOSAL 2 will clearly communicate to the broader social web that the new Working Group is welcoming of all kinds of ActivityPub+… implementers, whatever the "…" is for each such implementer and their products and services.
>>
>> I also fully support Emelia Smith as an invited expert to a future Social Web WG.
>>
>> Lastly, I agree with Evan's points regarding a maintenance-scoped charter (for all prior Social Web WG Recommendations), and encouraging new features (in any of those specs) to be incubated as extensions first per the proposed CG incubation process.
>
> Hey Tantek,
>
> Happy to go with the flow here! Quick question — do you remember the early SWWG days when we had a lot of use cases we didn’t quite get to? Many were left for "the next version."
>
> There’s been great progress across communities, but some things still feel unfinished, like exploring the Social Graph, systems of friend connections, and creating alternatives to Facebook that aren’t grounded in microblogging. When most people think "social web," they picture Facebook-style interactions, but here it’s more about microblogging. I wonder how (or if) we’re thinking about these broader social connections. Any thoughts on where this fits in?
>
> Cheers,
> Melvin
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tantek Çelik
>> https://tantek.com/
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 9:27 AM Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> tl;dr? I suggest PROPOSAL 2.
>>>
>>> Regarding the two charters under consideration:
>>>
>>> If the charters focus on the maintenance of prior and ongoing work of
>>> this CG, then needless to say, the CG needs to reach consensus. This of
>>> course doesn't prevent a proposal from being independently proposed
>>> (most likely observing the same criteria from
>>> https://www.w3.org/Guide/standards-track/#criteria ).
>>>
>>> Some PROPOSALs involving work on x and y:
>>>
>>> PROPOSAL 1: The CG proposes one charter involving x.
>>>
>>> PROPOSAL 2: The CG proposes one charter involving x and y.
>>>
>>> PROPOSAL 3: The CG proposes two charters, one involving x, and the other
>>> involving x and y.
>>>
>>> PROPOSAL 4: The CG proposes two charters with non-overlapping content.
>>>
>>> I suspect that getting unanimous support for any proposal will be
>>> difficult, if not hypothetical. So, it may be fruitful for the group to
>>> approach this with considerations along the following lines. This is not
>>> intended to be exhaustive, and I'm sure others can come up with several
>>> dozen more.
>>>
>>> * Which proposal will face the least objections? This may require
>>> refinements if some proposals have roughly equal support. What can most
>>> people live with?
>>>
>>> * This may be a bit high-level, but it's always a worthwhile exercise:
>>> Let's put the tech aside for a minute. Since we can never be certain
>>> about the future, which proposal(s) may be most useful for individuals
>>> and communities in the "social web" ecosystem in the short term? How
>>> about society in the long term? What do we need to urgently get out
>>> there with the least amount of friction?
>>>
>>> * Which of the proposals are we most confident that 1) W3C members will
>>> support, and 2) the WG will deliver?
>>>
>>> * What might be the ramifications if x or y are left behind? How and
>>> when can the CG pursue whatever is left behind? What assurances is the
>>> CG willing to put in place to ensure that it actually happens?
>>>
>>> Personal opinion:
>>>
>>> I believe the maintenance charters are only part of the story, and
>>> undoubtedly, we, the (social) web community, need to go beyond that. It
>>> is hard to argue or show, even by just taking the specs (e.g., the
>>> output of the Social Web WG) at face value, that a fully interoperable
>>> system can be demonstrated. There are gaps in specs, knowledge, and
>>> implementation. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but taking any set of
>>> classes of products across the Social Web specs, I don't see how any two
>>> or more implementations can be guaranteed to interoperate end to end.
>>> This is not a criticism, but rather an acknowledgment that there are
>>> open problems (and they are hard) and exciting work still ahead.
>>>
>>> So, I thought about all of this and had to put my personal tech
>>> preferences and what I generally use aside to help me think of the big
>>> picture and maintain my sense of fairness and balance.
>>>
>>> Ultimately, it is about moving forward with maintenance - whether people
>>> want things to stay relevant, need to polish things, or reflect on
>>> lessons from the real world, or whatever.
>>>
>>> I suspect that PROPOSALs 3 and 4 are relatively more expensive and
>>> complicated than PROPOSALs 1 and 2. And 3 and 4 may come across less
>>> coherent - we are talking about perceptions of Members and beyond here -
>>> than 1 and 2. Maintenance on PROPOSALs 1 or 2 can be carried out just
>>> fine without resorting to 3 or 4.
>>>
>>> I can live with either PROPOSAL 1 or 2.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if PROPOSAL 1 is completely adequate or representative of
>>> this group, but I don't mean faulty. PROPOSAL 2 seems more closely
>>> aligned with the complexities of the work on social web tech, and som
>>>
>>> Hey Tankek
>>>
>>> Happy to go with the flow here. One question. Do you remember we had during the first SWWG a number of use cases, of which we only tackled a subset? Many of them were suggested to be done "in the next version". While I appreciate lots has been done in various communities. There's still a few that we've not addressed. Things like for example, Browsing the Social Graph, Systems of People Connections and Friends, creating a system that offers an alternative to facebook, that is not grounded in micro blogging. When most people think of the social web they think of facebook. But in this group they think of micro blogging. I dont think we have got very far with "shoe-horning", such as saying a friendship is a two way follow (it is and it isnt), so saying that one microblogging site is like facebook. I was wondering where you think this fits in?
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Melvin
>>> e
>>> synergy across. Let's face it, all of this is still very much an attempt
>>> to turn the tide from the evil tech (tm) to our open standards-driven
>>> tech. Have we honestly scratched the surface? I don't know. But if we
>>>
>>> Hey Tankek
>>>
>>> Happy to go with the flow here. One question. Do you remember we had during the first SWWG a number of use cases, of which we only tackled a subset? Many of them were suggested to be done "in the next version". While I appreciate lots has been done in various communities. There's still a few that we've not addressed. Things like for example, Browsing the Social Graph, Systems of People Connections and Friends, creating a system that offers an alternative to facebook, that is not grounded in micro blogging. When most people think of the social web they think of facebook. But in this group they think of micro blogging. I dont think we have got very far with "shoe-horning", such as saying a friendship is a two way follow (it is and it isnt), so saying that one microblogging site is like facebook. I was wondering where you think this fits in?
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Melvin
>>> can continue to migrate more people (devs, individuals, communities),
>>> that's a win for everyone. Hopefully, they stick around after the first
>>> week :)
>>>
>>> The WG can set up task forces to keep focus and carry out the work by
>>> making the best use of time and everyone's bandwidth. I would even say
>>> that this should be an understanding before joining the group. The group
>>> should think about rechartering for new deliverables or unfinished
>>> business to close the gaps mentioned above and aim to build more bridges
>>> with other work and initiatives in the standards community.
>>>
>>> So, I suggest PROPOSAL 2.
>>>
>>> -Sarven
>>> https://csarven.ca/#i