Re: SocialWeb CG Feb 7, 2025 call -- CG Charter vote!

čt 6. 2. 2025 v 1:04 odesílatel Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
napsal:

> Hi all,
>
> Reminder that the February SocialWeb CG group call is coming up this
> coming Friday, Feb 7.
> We hope to see you all there, as we'll be voting to adopt the Charter for
> our Community Group. (Which will kick off a Call for Consensus period of 2
> weeks after Friday.)
>
> Now's your chance to look through the proposed charter (rendered version
> at https://swicg.github.io/potential-charters/CGCharter-1727386911.html
> ), issue tracker at https://github.com/swicg/potential-charters and bring
> up any last minute concerns.
>
> Calendar entry for the call:
> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/5d831091-a1b8-4be3-bf1a-36e896a61332/20250207T130000/
>

I believe there is an issue with *affiliation* in the context of the social
web and diversity—specifically, that it is not solely *employer-based*.
People often represent a *primary protocol ecosystem* (for lack of a better
term) they are actively working on.

In the WG, we had three broad groups: *Solid, IndieWeb, and ActivityStreams*,
with significant overlap among them. In an extreme scenario, you could have
20* CG members from IndieWeb*, each representing a single user, all voting
for one another. This could potentially *crowd out other areas of the
social web* that serve *millions of users*.

Affiliation needs to be broader to ensure representation across different
ecosystems. For instance, we could have:

   - *One chair from ActivityPub*,
   - *One from IndieWeb*,
   - *One from the broader social web* (including W3C-linked data
   standards, etc.).

Imagine someone introducing themselves on a call:

*"Hi, my name is Joe, and I work on ActivityPub."*

The *boilerplate charters* don’t align well with our use case, and there’s
no clear way to codify this in a formal charter *without risking it being
gamed*. However, we could *informally agree* on a more balanced approach:

   - *One chair from ActivityPub/Mastodon/SocialHub (with a max of two),*
   - *At most one from IndieWeb,*
   - *At most one from the rest of the social web, including W3C-linked
   data standards.*

If I recall correctly, during the *SWXG*, we had three proposed chairs, but
two were perceived as *too RDF-heavy*, leading to objections. One person
stepped back to ensure *better balance*.
Ultimately, we are often more *affiliated with the protocols we work on*
than with our employers (with exceptions like Bridgy). The challenge is
that *this balance is difficult to codify in a charter*, but we could
*informally
agree* to maintain *diverse leadership* for better representation.

Another way would be a two step process.  After elections, members reserve
the right to object to the proposed chairs, if they are not diverse
enough.  iirc this is what happened with the SWXG where we had two chairs
that were perceived to be heavy RDF, and so one swapped out for another,
which worked quite well.


> Thanks!
>