Re: Proposal for good developer relationships on the social web

What's the best way to move forward? Could we collaboratively edit a 
proposal?

Evan

On 2025-10-09 2:28 p.m., Emelia S. wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just want to clarify: the short discussion I had with Evan was about 
> the open letter from a few weeks ago. Looking at the PR comments, and 
> understanding that any significant changes to the letter would require 
> re-affirming all existing signatures, I suggested that perhaps it was 
> better for SWICG to put out a statement on collaboration and mutual 
> respect, which is within the spirit of the letter.
>
> It does need to be a bit more than just "we have a code of conduct", 
> because that usually only applies within the official groups, not to 
> behavior on social media, in chat rooms, or at events. It also doesn't 
> cover deliberately baiting another person with a misleading or 
> inflammatory comment, which is the primary behavior the letter was about.
>
> As long as people with significant influence within SWICG and the 
> broader ecosystem continue to try to fight for superiority over other 
> protocols or software built on those protocols, we continue to do 
> ourselves a disservice.
>
> We can engage with one another respectfully and without ego or 
> ulterior motives. We can work together where it makes sense, when 
> there is an overlap in knowledge or specifications.
>
> Hopefully this clarifies the matter at hand.
>
> Yours,
> Emelia Smith
>
>> On 9 Oct 2025, at 18:10, Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:
>>
>> Last week, I spent some time talking with Emelia Smith about 
>> cooperation with other developer communities on the social web, 
>> outside of the ActivityPub and Indie Web ecosystems. We thought that 
>> making a proposal that the CG could pass as a resolution would be a 
>> good step forward.
>>
>> I volunteered to write a compact, proposal-ready statement. Here's 
>> the first draft:
>>
>> /PROPOSED: Our Community Group includes members that focus on the 
>> ActivityPub, Indie Web, ATProto, Nostr and DSNP ecosystems. We 
>> re-commit ourselves to working together in this group under the W3C 
>> Code of Conduct https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/ and the 
>> General Communications Policies for W3C Community Groups 
>> https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/#general-policies . We 
>> further commit to hold ourselves to the same standard of conduct with 
>> social web developers//, regardless of the protocol they work 
>> with,// outside of the Community group context, in public or private, 
>> such as in online discussions or in-person meetings./
>>
>> I think this grounds our expected behaviour in already 
>> well-established policies. It reemphasizes the level of behaviour we 
>> all committed to when we joined the group. And it extends our 
>> expected level of behaviour outside of the CG context (mailing list, 
>> meetings, GitHub, forums) to other contexts as well.
>>
>> I can put this up on my private GitHub repo or add it to the SWICG 
>> repos, or just add it to the agenda for the November meeting (TPAC).
>>
>> Evan
>>
>