In a few weeks @w3c social web community group meeting may receive a proposal to explore chartering new social web working group that would only be open to people who work at W3C member companies. (The CG is open to all). Today there was an in person discussion at TPAC, the yearly W3C-wide f2f. It was a day-of addition to the agenda. Now is a good time to join the CG, subscribe to mailing list, and start participating in the discussions. https://www.w3.org/community/SocialCG/ #vote #activitypub
@aral @w3c The CG is open to all of us and generally should seek consensus for all decisions. You can disagree on list and in the open meeting (as long as it’s a CG and not a WG).
This is one proposal by one person, not a @w3c action, and it will fail to reach consensus as long as at least one person expresses concern/objection, eg a concern that a WG could de facto capture the fediverse. Trust the process (or not!)
@aral @bengo so, I would like to make iterative changes to the ActivityPub and Activity Streams 2.0 documents that make them easier to read and use for software developers.
I wonder if there are some guardrails we could put on that process that would let us get those benefits to the fediverse without ruining it for everyone.
Here are some thoughts.
**Participation**. Ben mentioned this up front. We'd need to make sure that a wide array of people can participate in decision-making; not just representatives of W3C member organisations.
(I think it's noteworthy that W3C members are not all tech companies. Lots of libraries, universities, Open Source foundations, and similar participants. See https://www.w3.org/membership/list/ ).
Keeping most of the work in the CG, and just using WG for limited doc editing, is probably a good idea here.
@evan @aral (just to connect the threads) I think Evan refers to my comment here https://mastodon.social/@bengo/111070356827784617