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

Hi Emelia,

First, a brief note that JF2 is probably more in the IndieWeb camp as it is
basically a json serialization of the MF2 parsing algorithm’s output. So a
“third group” would likely cover only LDN, which seems kind of poor
organizationally. Maybe this could be merged into the ActivityPub group,
but…

Second: why have this separation at all? It seems like an arbitrary way to
divide the former WG’s outputs, when it seems more straightforward to just
have them all under the banner of the same singular CG that inherited them
from the WG.

Point 2.5: I would say that if any separate scopes are to be declared, then
it doesn’t make sense for the CG. Perhaps this discussion or line of
reasoning might make sense if/when trying to narrowly scope one or more
WGs, but I think that there should be at least some “neutral ground” for
everyone to share approaches and experiences related to making the Web more
social. A CG seems like a good place for various groups to come together as
a sort of hub for all ongoing efforts.
Say for the sake of illustrative example, that an entirely new approach or
protocol or ecosystem sprung up that was ostensibly within the purview of a
“social web”, and that members of such a community wanted to bring their
work to the W3C — let’s say they want IP immunity for their work. Do we
turn them away? Or, if there were 2 or 3 separate CGs, do we force them to
start yet another CG? How do all these hypothetical CGs collaborate with
each other? Liaison with each other? I don’t think the separation helps
here.

-a