Re: A charter for the Social Web Working Group

On 2024-09-05 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.
> 
> 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


First, +1 to proposing a charter. Good timing.

This may be a bit of a tangent, but I'd like to emphasise something 
upfront that could be integral to the group's success, based on public 
knowledge and prior experience:

As I see it, the most significant point to note in the charter pitch is 
the exceptional adoption of the works, as well as the ample evidence of 
ongoing efforts by different individuals and sub-communities working to 
advance the social web. This is a matter of public fact, not opinion.

The other thing I'd like to highlight is about the kind of group it 
wants to be up front so that those that do wish to participate 
understand how they can engage constructively and what to expect from 
others. For example, what (eventually) worked for the Social Web WG was 
that decisions were largely driven by implementation experience. 
Implementations were developed by different parties with different 
codebases, as well as being predominantly (if not only) open source 
software and open test suites.

As goes the saying, "<del>decisions</del><ins>standards</ins> are made 
by those who show up". So, even if the WG will operate in the open, 
there will inevitably be situations - hopefully rare - where the 
participants will need to make decisions, and dare I say, vote on 
certain matters. A charter that emphasises publicly verifiable 
implementation experience (benefitting the social web in the long run) 
can help minimise potential friction. Easier said than done, I know.

That aside, the charter should have a crystal-clear scope, ideally 
eliminating anything that could potentially creep in or be considered 
for new or related work, and seriously avoid any attempts at 
rubber-stamping. If necessary, there can be rechartering, or a new WG 
can be formed later when there is evidence that new developments are 
being adopted and actively worked on.

-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Sunday, 8 September 2024 10:29:09 UTC