@julian @bengo @darius task forces continue.
General Discussion
14
Posts
4
Posters
21
Views
-
Darius, that's only partially true. Per policy, CG cannot publish normative specifications. It's NOT true that "only a WG can". S6.2.6 explicitly describes how AP can be updated without a WG. It requires W3C staff help, and requires backwards compatibility. Clarifying and improving the spec has always been possible without a WG, but not if W3C staff obstructs it, and not when insiders are determined to publish breaking changes despite lack of consensus in CG.
@darius @evan @julian I made the point in SWICG meeting years ago. W3C staff seemed to agree. https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/435#issuecomment-2065436813
There's no reason to keep repeating the half truth because it sounds true, but it's not, so it has clearly caused confusion. If that's the only reason we have a WG, we don't need one. There are other reasons.
There has not been CG consensus on a request to republish AP, and this is a way of venue shopping to a much smaller consensus group.
-
undefined notizie@poliverso.org shared this topic on
-
@darius @evan @julian I made the point in SWICG meeting years ago. W3C staff seemed to agree. https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/435#issuecomment-2065436813
There's no reason to keep repeating the half truth because it sounds true, but it's not, so it has clearly caused confusion. If that's the only reason we have a WG, we don't need one. There are other reasons.
There has not been CG consensus on a request to republish AP, and this is a way of venue shopping to a much smaller consensus group.
@bengo @evan @julian The idea is not just to make class 1 and 2 changes per 6.2.6. The idea is to make class 3 and 4 changes as well. That was in scope of what we discussed during the many meetings about the WG charter.
And I think the fact of the charter getting approved by the CG represents consensus? I wouldn't have agreed to be chair of a group I felt was illegitimate. (I know the consensus does not reflect unanimous consensus. I'm okay with that.)
-
@bengo @evan @julian The idea is not just to make class 1 and 2 changes per 6.2.6. The idea is to make class 3 and 4 changes as well. That was in scope of what we discussed during the many meetings about the WG charter.
And I think the fact of the charter getting approved by the CG represents consensus? I wouldn't have agreed to be chair of a group I felt was illegitimate. (I know the consensus does not reflect unanimous consensus. I'm okay with that.)
> 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.
-
> 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.
@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.
-
@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 @evan @julian I do not agree with your analysis of the situation post, say, January 2025 when I started to get involved in things. Prior to that (esp regarding CG chair selection) I was not involved and can't make any claims. My goal here is to get the standard to a place where its current shortcomings are addressed, and it is more widely implemented. (I'm trying to stay neutral on what those shortcomings are. I want to the CG to figure that out and make proposals alongside the WG.)
-
@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?
-
@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?
@evan @darius @julian The misinfo and deception here is endless and exhausting. That was not in the charter that passed SWICG CFC after ~ Feb 21, 2025.
Intentional or not this whole this is effectively a 'gish galloping' which is against the code of ethics and professional behavior. https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/
I'm so over this. I won't be replying more to correct your mistakes and inaccuracies any more.
-
> 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.
> 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
-
> 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
@bengo i'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on this matter, because it seems to me like activitypub and fedi were never really on the same page, and the w3c spec diverged from the mastodon network almost before it was ever published. is there a path to fixing this within w3c cg/wg structure? what does that look like? are there any other paths?
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@bengo i'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on this matter, because it seems to me like activitypub and fedi were never really on the same page, and the w3c spec diverged from the mastodon network almost before it was ever published. is there a path to fixing this within w3c cg/wg structure? what does that look like? are there any other paths?
-
> 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
-
@SimonTB @javahippie no fosdem for me unfortunately. Keep an eye out for the first commits. Still mulling over a testing strategy that is manageable and not too complex.
-
@tokyo_0 Whoever shows up and contributes. So you could!
-
@myfear @javahippie looks like what I've been wanting to build for a long time. Even similar tech stack (Java + Postgres). Guess it'll be hard to contribute as long as there's no existing code, right? But I'll keep an eye out for my chance to join #OpenPace :)
You guys don't happen to be at #FOSDEM to discuss about this project? Note: I'm not sure yet, if I can make it to FOSDEM this year.
-
@julian yes. BadgeFed has an API. But the concept is really simple, it is a Note (or Document) that has an attachment. The attachment is a property of the ActivityPub object usually used for videos or images. In this case the attachment includes a full OpenBadge object.
The only restriction is that the Note attributed (activitypub actor) MUST be the url in the OpenBadge issuer (issuer = actor). Also the recipient url from the OpenBadge SHOULD be mentioned in the Note.
With this simple mechanism you can pretty much create a compatible badge that can be decentralized with BadgeFed.
-
This needs integration with #GadgetBridge, of course
-
@mapache@hachyderm.io from what I understand you're using the ActivityPub note for compatibility. I wonder if a custom object type might open more doors.
Doesn't really matter, just thinking out loud ๐
Does BadgeFed have an API to create new badges? Or fetch badges?
