@julian @bengo @darius task forces continue.
General Discussion
9
Posts
3
Posters
0
Views
-
System moved this topic from Uncategorized
-
@evan @julian @bengo As chair of the new working group: I want as much work as possible done in the (community oriented, open) CG. I want the CG to bring proposals to the WG and I want the WG to reach out to the CG when we have needs.
The WG exists because W3C policy states that a CG cannot publish normative W3C specifications, only a (Members-only) WG can. I'm going to do the best I can to make the WG run as openly as possible within the framework handed to me.
-
@evan @julian @bengo As chair of the new working group: I want as much work as possible done in the (community oriented, open) CG. I want the CG to bring proposals to the WG and I want the WG to reach out to the CG when we have needs.
The WG exists because W3C policy states that a CG cannot publish normative W3C specifications, only a (Members-only) WG can. I'm going to do the best I can to make the WG run as openly as possible within the framework handed to me.
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, 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
-
@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.)
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@bengo I regret losing your email. It was clearly important. I'm sorry.
-
@evan @julian @darius @dmitri this isn't the first time you've claimed to not receive an email I sent from gmail and got no undeliverability notice for. You should fix your self hosted mail setup.
Beyond that, I'm finding it hard to reconcile your public position that private email is not the right way to work on these things when you have sent me so many private emails e.g. about how I should sign an NDA with Facebook to come work with you and them on ActivityPub and ActivityStreams.
-
@bengo @julian @darius @dmitri I also think backwards compatibility is important. It would be catastrophic to announce an incompatible next version that doesn't work with the existing millions of users and tens of thousands of servers. If we add new features, like LOLA, they'd have to be compatible with the network as it is now.
-
ActivityPub standardization is back! The #W3C just announced a new Working Group to evolve #ActivityPub and #ActivityStream and related standards! This is extremely good news. It's not like all the world's federated social media protocol problems were already solved! https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2026Jan/0000.html
-
@bengo @julian @darius @dmitri I don't think private email is the right way to work on ActivityPub or Activity Streams, anyways. If you think something went wrong with one of the errata or the editors' draft, you should definitely open an issue on GitHub or post to the public-swicg mailing list. You've been active in those discussions, so that's probably a great way to talk about it.
-
@bengo @julian @darius @dmitri That doesn't ring a bell. Checking my email archives, I see your announcement of activitypub-testing on 15 Jan and you declined the AP issue triage on 17 Jan.
-
@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.)
