@bhaugen unfortunately I don’t have a great recommendation. but in two weeks I predict you will see plenty of self congratulation associated with an invite only, off-web, in-person meeting where the closed “open” social web work begins.

UPDATE: in person thing no longer in two weeks but at some point before long there will be a WG kickoff for w3c members / privileged. The good news is now hopefully there will be more notice on when/where in case anyone wants to seek the privilege.

@darius @evan @julian The CG decision policy, ie the group which ostensibly decided to approve a charter, *requires* the chair be elected. The CG Chair has not been elected EVER. And yet we are talking about what the CG has decided by consensus as determined by a completely different policy than the CG charter's decision policy requires. It's so clear an outcome was decided and all process that made that inconvenient is ignored, so I just can't let this misinfo spread that process requires WG.

@bengo @darius @julian I'm not sure the charter says that the Chair ever has to be elected. "Participants in this group choose their Chair(s) and can replace their Chair(s) at any time using whatever means they prefer." After adopting the charter, we never changed the Chair -- he just stayed in place. I agree that it's well past time for us to have an election, but I don't see where consensus can only be evaluated by an elected Chair. What am I missing?

@bengo @darius @julian I'm not sure the charter says that the Chair ever has to be elected. "Participants in this group choose their Chair(s) and can replace their Chair(s) at any time using whatever means they prefer." After adopting the charter, we never changed the Chair -- he just stayed in place. I agree that it's well past time for us to have an election, but I don't see where consensus can only be evaluated by an elected Chair. What am I missing?

@aburka I tried but nah it goes all the way to the top, and w3c staff send intimidation in response to dissent, so not worth it for most. The time to stop it was the last 2.5 years of discussion and conspicuous lack of consensus. that was all after w3c staff told insiders at TPAC 2023 off minutes “send me a charter and I’ll get the WG started right away”.

It’s not up to us or even AP editors, none of whom have supported this.
It’s up to the W3C CEO and board.

“Vote with your feet”

@bengo @aburka As I’ve always said, just because it’s a specification it doesn’t mean you have to implement it. I’m more of an applied than pure developer, so I tend to prefer things from IETF than W3C (not that that is any kind of endorsement from me because IETF’s RFCs are not exactly immune from pay-to-play). I’m sure everybody involved has the best intentions, as always, but.

@omz13 @aburka it’s interesting you mention that because ActivityStreams 2 started at IETF not W3C, mostly authored/implemented well before Evan inherited it after the original authors left SocialWG. There was a strategic decision to also work on it at W3C WG for wide review and to consider the needs of social web industry (of the time).
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-snell-activitystreams-00

It’s not an either or thing. There are many applied developers at both. I’m a big IETF fan as well, where AS2 has roots.

@bengo @aburka I somehow missed it came via IETF. Nevertheless, I dislike AS2 with a passion. Being a big fan of strictly typed languages, it is a PITA to implement, as is all that LD, RDF, SOLID, and related stuff.

@darius @evan @julian

> The idea is to make class 3 and 4 changes as well.

It's a bad and unfair idea, is what i"m saying. Totally respect your position if you disagree.

> And I think the fact of the charter getting approved by the CG represents consensus?

Another half truth. CG consensus is entirely determined by the CG chair. There could be a vast majority against something, and if the CG Chair says there is consensus, there is. 'consensus' is very malleable due to this.

@bengo

> It's a bad and unfair idea [to make class 3 and 4 changes] [...] Totally respect your position if you disagree

i'm not super familiar with the w3c process but from a pragmatic standpoint what do you do when userspace is already broken and nothing is class conformant?

activitystreams was intended to describe streams of activities, and activitypub was intended for publishing activities to those streams of activities. no one in fedi does this. they syndicate posts and discard activities