Recent searches
Search options
I want to get some things clear about the potential re-chartering of the Social Web Working Group.
The focus is extremely tight: to make editorial and other corrections to ActivityPub and Activity Streams 2.0.
One issue is the mistaken idea that only W3C member companies could participate in the WG. This is not true.
There were dozens of non-member participants in the original WG that created ActivityPub. I was not a member, even though I was chair, nor were most of the other AP authors.
If we charter another WG, people who want to join will be able to join.
The second misapprehension is that companies are trying to take over ActivityPub.
As one person currently maintaining the spec, I can say pretty conclusively that there aren't a cabal of companies slavering to take over the work.
As always, the work is being done by volunteers, like me, every day and every week.
An updated document would be clearer and easier to understand. Developers wouldn't have to go back and forth between the document and the ERRATA.
It would not have new features. Those happen in the Community Group, or in FEPs, which, again, anyone can join.
If you oppose forming a working group, that means you oppose having an updated document, and it means you want things to be harder for developers, so we have less software and less fediverse.
Maybe you shouldn't oppose that.
@evan
*qualified agree*
@evan And we know and appreciate the work that you do. It's not easy. I know first hand some of what you go through but can appreciate the rest. Thank you.