Re: WG Scope

pá 28. 3. 2025 v 9:40 odesílatel Bumblefudge <bumblefudge@learningproof.xyz>
napsal:

> Hey chat, what's the timeline on these charter proposals?  I remember
> hearing something about "the end of March" which is... Monday?
>
> I would like to ask one last time for anyone reading this to take a glance
> at the open PRs <https://github.com/swicg/potential-charters/pulls> and
> issues over the weekend, and comment on any PR they don't understand or
> have feelings about, with hopefully lower stakes than an on-call +1/-1.
> Next week (I presume?) the chairs [+PLH?] have a meeting about next steps
> before our next whole-CG meeting.  It feels like a very small subset of the
> people who have spoken at meetings about scope have been +1ing and
> commenting in the potential-charters repo, and none of the "notes-readers"
> from the broader community; I suspect that people might be putting off this
> odious, tax-filing-like chore for lack of clear timelines and deadlines
> (one of my shrinks called this "plausible avoidance" and I never recovered
> from the insult). Would a definitive deadline for new PRs help? Could it
> be... sunday midnight server-time? In other working group contexts, I've
> seen an explicit social contract that "any issues not closed by a PR get
> resolved unilaterally by chairs" after the PR deadline, which I fear might
> happen here for lack of more time for deliberation...
>

Great to see this work moving forward. Just a quick note that charters can
sometimes take several years to complete — the original SWWG charter, for
example, had over five years of input from the XG and other sources, and
involved a substantial amount of work.

A quick glance at the repo suggests it may be a stretch to finalize
everything by the end of March.

That said, I’ve heard (though I could be mistaken) that the W3C has kindly
offered to assist in drafting the charter for the group.

If that offer is still on the table, it might be worth taking them up on
it, while continuing to provide input based on the current draft.

Just my two cents.


>
> Anxiously consensual,
> __juan
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 4:06 PM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks! It'd be especially helpful to get feedback from Christine and
>> Tantek on this.
>>
>> I hope that it balances Tantek's expectation that the Indyweb stack
>> recommendations would be in-scope for the WG, with Christine's concern for
>> not overloading the WG with too much work at any one time.
>>
>> One question for Philippe: is it acceptable to leave the scope open like
>> this? That is, the WG will maintain all of the recommendations that came
>> out of the (first) Social Web Working Group, but without a specific
>> delivery date for the next version of each one?
>>
>> Evan
>> On 2025-03-24 6:57 a.m., Bumblefudge wrote:
>>
>> Hey Evan:
>>
>> Thanks for pushing on this, I heartily agree that however the WG(s) get
>> scoped, it is crucial to stagger and manage parallel work openly and
>> publicly. I opened a PR that I hope speeds up discussion on this kind of
>> workflow mechanism, and will extend it to the other proposals once I've
>> gotten some feedback, approvals, and/or competing PRs! The clock is
>> ticking, though, so timely review would be appreciated from the CG.
>>
>> Hastily,
>> __juan
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 8:19 PM Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I added an issue to the potential-charters repository with a proposal
>>> for managing scope for the WG:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/swicg/potential-charters/issues/83
>>>
>>> I think we should consider *all* the Social Web Working Group
>>> recommendations as in-scope for the new WG, but let the new WG set its own
>>> schedule and prioritisation for maintaining those documents.
>>>
>>> I think this would balance the need to maintain all the existing
>>> documents on the one hand against the limited time and attention of the
>>> working group on the other.
>>>
>>> As an example of how this could work (and *not a proposal for an actual
>>> work schedule, please do not at me*), imagine that, almost immediately,
>>> the workgroup starts with these document revisions:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Activity Streams 2.1 (core and vocabulary) - incorporate errata,
>>>    improve clarity
>>>    - ActivityPub 1.1 - incorporate errata, expand media upload, define
>>>    replies maintenance, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> As this work winds down, and these documents move into the final stages
>>> of recommendation, the WG might take on more work:
>>>
>>>
>>>    - WebSub 1.1 - errata and clarifications
>>>    - LOLA 1.0 - define LOLA
>>>
>>>
>>> (Again, this is just an example schedule. I don't know if WebSub needs a
>>> 1.1 update or if that's the highest priority change.) As these were
>>> completed and moved into PR and TR stage, the group might then take on
>>> additional streams of work:
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Activity Streams 2.2 (vocabulary) - expand vocabulary with new
>>>    terms
>>>    - ActivityPub E2EE Messaging - example of new functionality and new
>>>    document
>>>    - Micropub 1.1 - errata
>>>
>>> In this example, the WG is keeping a healthy and productive 2-3 parallel
>>> document pace, but is still covering multiple documents over the period.
>>>
>>> The WG could set its own heuristics for initiating new work, such as
>>> having N editors for each active document; having N chairs per active
>>> document workstream; staging work initiated in the SocialCG; community and
>>> implementer demand; and so on.
>>>
>>> I think that as a more mature WG doing iterative updates to existing
>>> work, with occasional extensions to that work, it would not be under the
>>> same time pressure as the previous Social Web WG was. If we want, we can
>>> set more healthy and realistic expectations for deliverables, and still
>>> take responsibility for all the docs published by the previous Social Web
>>> WG.
>>>
>>> Evan
>>>
>>