@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 in person meeting where the closed open social development begins
Discussion
Loading...
Here is where it was almost resolved without due process in 2023. Read the minutes from back then.
@bengo Why? To avoid AI scraping?
@davep that is a better question for the w3c staff, mozilla staff, etc that have been relentlessly railroading this for years
https://www.w3.org/2023/09/12-social-minutes.html#xt03
@bengo Thanks. I'm half asleep at the moment and it took a while to get going. I'll look at it at a later point. Boy, is it heavy with bureaucracy.
@bengo
Well, good news is nobody needs to care about what a closed group has to say and we can continue to just do whatever we want.
@bengo that sucks. Any way to stop it?
@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.
@aburka one more thing: I’m genuinely super excited about the near term readiness of social webs based on open protocols and architecture appropriate for 2025, not AP’s outdated arch from more than 15 years ago (eg AP had client side signatures in 2017, but the chairs of the old group cut it at the last minute so now your Mastodon instance can spoof you).
"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." – John Maynard Keynes.
@bengo thanks for the warning. Where can I learn more?
@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 in person meeting where the closed open social development begins
@bhaugen update: this is the best place for relevant information and to provide feedback. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2026Jan/0016.html
⁂ Article
Re: Friendly reminder #ActivityPub protocol development will go back behind permissioned closed doors (unless you pay w3c or are deemed an invited expert) doors at w3c in the near future.
@bengo@mastodon.social info re: the re-charter is here.
https://www.w3.org/2026/01/social-web-wg-charter.html
I'm confused about it, because the move to closed door meetings is concerning. It's not that I fear I won't be invited — I'm certain if I asked I would be — but that SocialCG meetings have been quite divorced from the actual developers, and this move cements this somewhat.
Of course this could also just be a formality as the group moves from CG to WG.
What of the task forces, do they continue? I've been working on a task force under the CG banner ...
Some lingering questions @evan@cosocial.ca @darius@friend.camp (whose name is on the new charter?)
@silverpill @bhaugen FEP is also permission we by design 🧠
@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 in person meeting where the closed open social development begins