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

čt 6. 2. 2025 v 19:25 odesílatel a <a@trwnh.com> napsal:

> 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
>

Great points! This CG isn't just a continuation of the Social Web Working
Group (SWWG)—it also traces back to the W3C Federated Social Web Incubator
Group (XG), which transitioned into a Community Group in 2012. The SWWG was
actually a subset of that broader effort, not the other way around.

At W3C, different technologies already have their traditional homes:

- ActivityPub: http://www.w3.org/community/activitypub/
- Federated Social Web: http://www.w3.org/groups/cg/fedsocweb
- Solid (Social Linked Data): http://www.w3.org/community/solid/

* indieweb afaik have never had their own CG, as they prefer to work on IRC

For 20 years, the broader social web has worked within this group. It has
always been the space for collaboration across different protocols and
approaches, beyond any single ecosystem. That work needs to continue, which
means either ensuring an inclusive charter that reflects this role or
considering a split into different Community Groups.