Re: A charter for the Social Web Working Group

On 05/09/24 13:55, Evan Prodromou 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.

I just hope that 3 will never became mandatory for ActivityPub 
implementations, as it would forbid storing different servers on the 
same domain, under different paths.

>
> 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.
Analogously, to 3, forcing ActivityPub server to use HTTP signatures 
would create some difficulties for servers who don't like to own users 
private keys. However, this may be circumvented as shown in 
https://github.com/cristianolongoodhl/clientsidehttpsignotes , but I'm 
not really sure that this approach can cope with all the possible 
situations.
> 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
>
>

Received on Friday, 6 September 2024 09:20:18 UTC