@evan @hongminhee Hello brother, I hope you are in good health and well-being. Could you please look into my story and help me with a small donation to provide treatment and food for my children? My husband is a prisoner and I have no provider. You are my only hope. Please don't ignore me. 🥹🥹

@evan@cosocial.ca I think the language barrier is the first thing to tackle. Live video calls are the hardest format for non-native speakers, so shifting more of the work to written communication would help a lot, and every meeting really needs minutes, even rough ones, since at least those can be run through a translator afterward. I've tried the newer real-time transcription and translation tools a few times and honestly the quality still isn't there, especially with ActivityPub-specific jargon that general models just don't recognize; feed a bad transcript into a translator and it gets worse, not better. Written async channels, like the FEP process already is, seem like a better fit for now. On the community side, @fedidevkr@hackers.pub (a Korean fediverse developer group I'm part of) has been kicking around the idea of a session where people draft FEP proposals together in Korean first, then translate and refine into English as a group. Still an early idea, but I think local hubs like that could lower the barrier more than any single W3C-side change.

@hongminhee
Hi,
Have you ever tried to reach those people ?
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
May be they could help. (I hope )

@evan @fedidevkr

@foxmask@planet.moe @evan@cosocial.ca By “those people,” do you mean the ActivityPub spec editors?

@hongminhee i mean
Aurhors and editors if possible if it makes sense
@evan

@hongminhee @evan @fedidevkr I think the process can be changed to allow multi-lingual proposals. As separate markdown files sharing the same hash, perhaps

@hongminhee @evan @fedidevkr >Live video calls are the hardest format for non-native speakers

and timezone is also an issue since most English speaker live in Europe or America, so the time different is too large.

@foxmask @hongminhee hi! I am the current editor of ActivityPub and Activity Streams 2.0. We are actively moving towards a next version.

@caohuak @hongminhee @fedidevkr

We actually moved the SocialCG/SocialWG meeting to accommodate east Asian time zones. We now alternate between a Europe-friendly time and an Asia-friendly time. If we need to move more, I think we would!

/cc @darius @j12t @dmitri

@hongminhee @fedidevkr

So, we might not be that far off. All the CG/WG meetings are supposed to have minutes to read. They all go into https://github.com/swicg/meetings .

@foxmask @hongminhee

The Social Web Community Group of the W3C builds extensions and profiles of ActivityPub. It's open to anyone to join:

https://www.w3.org/community/socialcg/

The Social Web Working Group is responsible for ActivityPub and Activity Streams 2.0. It is open to W3C members and invited experts; we include almost anyone as an invited experts.

https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/social/

@hongminhee @fedidevkr for asynchronous collaboration, we have two main mechanisms.

One is using GitHub issues and PRs. We have two main GitHub repos for ActivityPub and Activity Streams respectively, and issues are the main way we coordinate work.

https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues

There are specific task forces for different application areas for the community group, so for example this one gives you issues for geosocial apps:

https://github.com/swicg/geosocial/issues

@hongminhee @fedidevkr the second mechanism is the mailing lists; one for the community group and one for the working group.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/

These are places for discussion but also for decisions. In particular, no decision is made by the community group without a 14-day call for consensus (cfc) on the mailing list.

So, it's entirely possible to follow work and participate from there.

@hongminhee @fedidevkr

As you probably know, the W3C has hundreds of member organizations, and many of them are in East Asia. The organization has two important partners, Keio University in Japan and Beihang University in China.

We have a community group meeting tonight, and I'm going to add an agenda item about engaging more East Asian participants.

@hongminhee @fedidevkr

If I were to put together a document in Korean and Japanese (auto translated) with roughly this information, would you be willing to read it over for style? Just so it's not nonsensical.

@caohuak @hongminhee @fedidevkr

Next "Series B" meeting is this: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/cca78019-8314-4ecf-8945-e13d832c03fc/20260917T230000/

I don't know your time zones, but does this work for you all?

@evan @darius @dmitri

@j12t @caohuak @hongminhee @fedidevkr @darius @dmitri It sounds like it's less about the time zone, and more about the level of fluency required to participate in a video call in another language. It would be interesting for us to consider how to best handle this; I think more async participation (minutes, GitHub issues, forum, mailing list) might help.

@evan@cosocial.ca Thanks for all the detail, this is really helpful context. I didn't realize the CfC process on the mailing list carried that much weight, that alone changes how I'd describe the participation options to people here.

I'm happy to read over the Korean version for style, though depending on how long the document ends up being it might take me a bit. For Japanese I should say upfront that I'm not a native speaker, so I'd rather not be the one vouching for naturalness there. @tesaguri@fedibird.com would be a much better fit for that, if they're up for it.

@hongminhee

I‘d be happy to proofread the Japanese version too, if you agree that I‘m qualified for it @evan.