Re: A charter for the Social Web Working Group

pá 6. 9. 2024 v 11:24 odesílatel Daniel Appelquist <dan@torgo.com> napsal:

> Just popping my head up to also voice support for the basic proposal. For
> another example of CGs and WGs working well together, see the Immersive Web
> Working Group: https://www.w3.org/2022/07/immersive-web-wg-charter.html


Great to see you here, Daniel! For those unfamiliar, Daniel chaired the
Social Web Incubator Group over 15 years ago, which led to the first SWWG.
A lot has happened since then! A new charter would be great if it can gain
consensus with the W3C and wider community.

Also, Solid (Social Linked Data) has just been chartered under the W3C
Linked Web Storage Working Group, set to run for 2 years. Solid was part of
the original SWWG, and I’m interested to explore how Solid and ActivityPub
can intersect, so that fediverse users can benefit from personal data
storage and other Solid Apps.

https://solid.github.io/solid-wg-charter/charter/


>
>
> Dan
> *returns to lurker mode*
>
> On Friday, 6 September 2024 at 09:43, Pierre-Antoine Champin <
> pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > quick reaction to the last point
> >
> > On 05/09/2024 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. 🤞🏼
> >
> > Having joint meetings between the WG and the CG is indeed entirely
> > possible. The JSON-LD WG and CG have been working like this for a while.
> >
> > However, I would expect some push back from W3C members if the WG
> > charter said something like "no independent decisions". This almost
> > sounds like the WG would be subordinated to the CG...
> >
> > That being said, if the letter is problematic, I understand (and concur
> > with) the spirit of this phrase. Actually, there are more and more
> > discussions among W3C members about  the importance of getting feedback
> > from all stakeholders, not just WG participants. So I would suggest to
> >
> > * include, in the charter, the CG in the "Coordination" section of the
> > charter, explicitly stating that the WG will have regular joint meeting
> > with the CG
> > * somewhere in the charter (intro of the "Coordination" section, or even
> > in the "Success criteria"), explain that the chairs of the WG will
> > strive to find consensus with all stakeholders, possibly beyond the
> > participants of the WG
> >
> > my 2¢
> >
> >   pa
> >
> > > Evan
>
>