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

čt 6. 2. 2025 v 18:43 odesílatel Emelia S. <emelia@brandedcode.com> napsal:

> Hi all,
>
> I think we'd actually be better served by forming a few different
> community groups:
> - one for ActivityPub / AS2 + the related specs
> - one for IndieWeb, so things like IndieAuth, webmention, etc
> - and a third for ... I'm not sure what to call it, but like linked data
> notifications, JF2, etc
>
> We could share all the charter documents, but I think this would give each
> CG a much clearer focus, folks can be chairs or involved in multiple CG's,
> so that should be fine. We can always do joint calls and collaborate on
> documents too, I'm sure, if need be.
>
> I'm not sure we're best served by one big umbrella "Social Web CG", when
> there's some very specific needs for each group that are sometimes
> competing.
>
> This is currently my main concern with the charter document and it's scope
> of work — I think we're unfocused there and it could lead to situations
> like what originally happened with the WG, which I think we'd possibly be
> best to avoid repeating?
>
> That also solves the "who should be a chair" problem around voting and
> such that Melvin pointed at.
>
> Thoughts?
>

Hi Emelia

I've been having similar thoughts for a while! I think there's a balance to
strike here.

Splitting the group could reduce network effects and momentum, which are
hard to build. There’s also the classic tension between a *"big tent"*
approach and a *"small tent"* focus. A narrower scope risks favoring
certain technologies over others—Tech X becomes *the* social web, while
Tech Y gets sidelined.

W3C has long championed a broad, inclusive vision for the social web, and I
think there's value in sticking together to see if that works. If *ActivityPub
is not pitched as the entire Social Web*, then keeping the group unified
makes sense. But something has to give a little.

Happy to hear more thoughts!


>
> — Emelia
>
> On 6 Feb 2025, at 12:08, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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!
>>
>
>