Re: A charter for the Social Web Working Group

+1

I am also interested in the group look at extension types for both event
and calendars for Activity Streams.

Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org | @aaronngray@threads.net

Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher,
Information Theorist, Amataur Computer Scientist and Environmentalist and
Climate Science Disseminator.



On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 at 12:56, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:

> So, at last year's TPAC meeting, we discussed chartering a new Working
> Group. Only a Working Group can publish new versions of a published
> recommendation, and every recommendation is supposed to have an active
> working group to manage it.
>
> I'd like to propose that we move forward with a charter for an ongoing
> Social WG charter:
>
> 1. Apply errata to ActivityPub and Activity Streams 2.0 recommendations.
>
> 2. Make backwards-compatible, clarifying text for ActivityPub and
> Activity Streams 2.0. Not new features or functionality, but clearer
> explanations for some of the terse and/or vague language in both sets of
> specs.
>
> 3. Refine the recent CG report for ActivityPub + Webfinger into a
> recommendation.
>
> 4. Refine the recent CG report for ActivityPub + HTTP Signature into a
> recommendation, including an upgrade to RFC 9421, with backwards
> compatibility as a fallback.
>
> 5. As other new CG reports, like E2EE and LOLA, are published and
> implemented, refine the reports into recommendations.
>
> I think this WG could work with a limited membership -- ideally just the
> editors of each document -- and work with consensus from this CG. So, no
> independent meetings, decisions, etc. 🤞🏼
>
> Evan
>
>
>