mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

380K
active users

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.
w3.org/community/SocialCG/

www.w3.orgSocial Web Incubator Community GroupThe Social Web Incubator Community Group (also known as SocialCG, or SWICG) is the successor of the Social Web Working Group, which ran from 2014 to 2017. The SocialCG provides space to collaborate and coordinate for implementors who are building on any of the <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/">specifications published by the Social Web WG</a>, and related technologies. It is also a place to incubate new proposals which build on or complement the Social Web WG recommendations.<br><br> Discussions and meeting announcements happen on <a href="https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/">the SocialHub forum</a> or on project-specific version control repositories.<br><br> Meetings are not always weekly, but can be requested or convened by any member of the group. If you have a specific item to discuss, please contact a chair if you need help with <a href="https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG#Meetings">meeting logistics</a>, and make a post on the SocialHub forum, ideally with two or more weeks notice.

@bengo @w3c How surprising and entirely unpredictable of them to try and corporate capture the fediverse.

@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!)

@bengo @w3c I have to say I don’t have a huge amount of trust in the corporate standards body of surveillance capitalism but here’s hoping you’re right.

@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.

@aral @bengo

**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 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.

W3COur membersThe World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards.

@aral @bengo **Transparency** I mentioned minutes and meetings. I really like Ben's idea of recorded meetings and automated transcription. Doing other work, like regular public blogging or reporting, might also help a lot.