Re: Say charter one more time

pá 8. 11. 2024 v 19:15 odesílatel Tantek <tantek@tantek.com> napsal:

> Hi Melvin, bumblefudge,
>
> I also really appreciate energy toward exploring and documenting
> use-cases, building on the work from the Social Web WG and IG.
>
> > 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."
>
> 1. Prior work: from a quick search I found:
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Use_Cases and the links listed there.
>
> > 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?
>
> 2. Agreed on these examples of use-cases. Like bumblefudge suggests, in my
> opinion we (this CG) we should (re-)explore use-cases by building on the
> wiki pages linked from (1) above, or if we prefer, starting new wiki pages
> under https://www.w3.org/SocialCG ... and then linking to them from a
> "use-cases" index page to help with discovery.
>
> Hope that helps!
>

Sounds great, thank you!


>
> Tantek
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 9:52 AM bumblefudge von CASA <
> bumblefudge@learningproof.xyz> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>