Re: Say charter one more time

Hi all,

As noted elsewhere, I would absolutely be interested in being an Invited Expert.

At present, I'm frequently at the SWICG Issue Triage, I'm the leader of the SWICG ActivityPub Trust & Safety Task Force, and involved in multiple Fediverse projects. However, as I'm self-employed / freelance, I cannot get W3C membership.

– Emelia Smith

> On 31 Oct 2024, at 21:08, Bumblefudge <bumblefudge@learningproof.xyz> wrote:
> 
> Hey Sarven:
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts here, I would love to hear from more of the group "on the record" (by which I mean the mailing list and/or github repo threads) because there is a natural tendency to think things like WG scope are "W3C concerns" decided by "insiders" while, in practice, anyone following this list and watching from a distance (including non-implementers and non-professionals and even non-W3C members!) should feel they have a voice, particularly if they would consider making a long-term commitment to contributing to normative work items (whether as a full member or as an Invited Expert).
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, on the one hand, I know we have a "recharter along the way" option but having witnessed recharters (with their own "insider/passenger" dynamics) in other WGs, I'm not inclined to make that Plan A.  I think scope-creep (or even worse, distracting and oxygen-sucking ongoing conversations about scope that compete with the in-scope work itself for mindshare and calltime!) is something best avoided by having, if not a pre-defined list of deliverables, at least a relatively explicit and trustworthy and deliberative method for constraining the list of work items over time to "upgrades" or further reviews/hardening of CG work items being promoted to "normative scope" by CG consensus and deliberation. 
> 
> In any case, I would strongly encourage us all to have a very good CG Charter BEFORE deciding on WG scope(s), and really think through corner-cases and failure modes of the CG-to-WG pipeline doc, if that will be the mechanism by which WG scope can grow over time...
> 
> Thanks,
> __bf
> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 6:27 PM Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca <mailto: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 some 
>> 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 
>> 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