Next steps for a proposal to become official W3C specs?

narF commented

2023-03-14 18:02:01 +00:00

Hi

I think this project looks super cool. I'm not technical enough to understand more than just the summary of each proposal, but I like the idea of having a process in place to evolve the Activity Pub specifications.

I'm curious though to understand what is required for a proposal to become "official". And once that's done, how would a proposal become part of the W3C ActivityPub specs?

My understanding is that the Activity Pub specs is currently dormant and has no one to maintain it on W3C side?

Thank you all for your work on this! :)

Hi I think this project looks super cool. I'm not technical enough to understand more than just the summary of each proposal, but I like the idea of having a process in place to evolve the Activity Pub specifications. I'm curious though to understand what is required for a proposal to become "official". And once that's done, how would a proposal become part of the W3C ActivityPub specs? My understanding is that the Activity Pub specs is currently dormant and has no one to maintain it on W3C side? Thank you all for your work on this! :)

👍 1

silverpill commented

2023-03-14 19:57:01 +00:00

Collaborator

At this moment all proposals are equal (except FEP-a4ed, which describes the FEP process itself). Thus, FEP process exists in agreement with the Fediverse, which doesn't have any official implementations or servers.

Who can be trusted to decide what proposals should be promoted to W3C standards? I think the answer is no one, at least at the current stage of Fediverse development.

However, anyone can create a package of FEPs and submit it as yet another FEP (e.g. FEP-xxxx: Microblogging 2023).

At this moment all proposals are equal (except FEP-a4ed, which describes the FEP process itself). Thus, FEP process exists in agreement with the Fediverse, which doesn't have any official implementations or servers. Who can be trusted to decide what proposals should be promoted to W3C standards? I think the answer is no one, at least at the current stage of Fediverse development. However, anyone can create a package of FEPs and submit it as yet another FEP (e.g. `FEP-xxxx: Microblogging 2023`).

👍 1

circlebuilder commented

2023-03-16 06:51:20 +00:00

Owner

Indeed, at current stage the FEP is the process we can hope to keep going and also make way more active than it is currently. It requires people promoting it on the Fediverse.

In terms of standardization, a 3-track process might be followed in the future, as I mention in proposal on scope of SocialHub.

As this notepad describes, there are errors in the spec raised as issues on W3C tracking, but no one is dealing with it. We might even fork these repositories to this Coderge fediverse org, and create a vNext draft of the spec where the collective dev community is in control of changes and we bypass the formality of W3C for now.

(Might take this as a proposal to SocialHub)

Indeed, at current stage the FEP is the process we can hope to keep going and also make way more active than it is currently. It [requires people promoting it](https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/please-promote-your-socialhub-it-is-important/2941) on the Fediverse. In terms of standardization, a 3-track process might be followed in the future, as I mention in [proposal on scope of SocialHub](https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/poll-socialhub-scope-and-purpose/2843). As [this notepad](https://notes.smallcircles.work/_FF2CKvcRy62RrygWkOWHA#) describes, there are errors in the spec raised as issues on W3C tracking, but no one is dealing with it. We might even fork these repositories to this Coderge `fediverse` org, and create a vNext draft of the spec where the collective dev community is in control of changes and we bypass the formality of W3C for now. (Might take this as a proposal to SocialHub)

👍 1

tallship commented

2023-03-16 19:00:41 +00:00

So frustrating. Again, the eternal page loading notice at ActivityPub.rocks ☹️

I went there to post this for promotion and the hurry up and wait screen awaited. I even played with the URLs as @silverpill suggested, to varying degrees of success but still couldn't load the particular threads intended.

Perhaps I can do this from a couple of my more tech related Fedi accounts instead for a wider reach. I'm just a bit apprehensive about it bringing an unwelcomed signal to noise ratio here.

Your thoughts? I've got a pretty good reach there across the Fediverse.

So frustrating. Again, the eternal page loading notice at ActivityPub.rocks ☹️ I went there to post this for promotion and the hurry up and wait screen awaited. I even played with the URLs as @silverpill suggested, to varying degrees of success but still couldn't load the particular threads intended. Perhaps I can do this from a couple of my more tech related Fedi accounts instead for a wider reach. I'm just a bit apprehensive about it bringing an unwelcomed signal to noise ratio here. Your thoughts? I've got a pretty good reach there across the Fediverse.

circlebuilder commented

2023-03-17 05:22:07 +00:00

Owner

I brought up the forum issue and Hellekin, admin at SocialHub said he'd do an upgrade. Which may have happened, but I do not see a post on that yet. There may be an issue with browser cache, and clearing it may help (though for one person at least it didn't).

Created this topic yesterday: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/should-we-fork-as-ap-specs-to-codeberg-create-vnext-drafts/3022

The W3C repo’s are full of issues and PR’s. Since creating that pad this has only grown. No one maintains these repo’s and yet there are errors in the spec and unclear texts, etc.

We might fork the specs to the same location where the FEP’s are currently maintained, the fediverse org. Deal with issues/PR’s there, and report back to people on Github trying to bring their changes.

Later on, should the W3C, via the SWICG or another Community Group, changes might be merged upstream again.

WDYT?

I see FEP + SocialHub currently as best ways forward. And other than that many people are doing their thing in 'grassroots chaos' and that's fine too. There's evolution at least. The W3C Mailing list has become active too.

I brought up the forum issue and Hellekin, admin at SocialHub said he'd do an upgrade. Which may have happened, but I do not see a post on that yet. There may be an issue with browser cache, and clearing it may help (though for one person at least it didn't). Created this topic yesterday: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/should-we-fork-as-ap-specs-to-codeberg-create-vnext-drafts/3022 > The W3C repo’s are full of issues and PR’s. Since creating that pad this has only grown. No one maintains these repo’s and yet there are errors in the spec and unclear texts, etc. > > We might fork the specs to the same location where the FEP’s are currently maintained, the `fediverse` org. Deal with issues/PR’s there, and report back to people on Github trying to bring their changes. > > Later on, should the W3C, via the SWICG or another Community Group, changes might be merged upstream again. > > WDYT? I see FEP + SocialHub currently as best ways forward. And other than that many people are doing their thing in 'grassroots chaos' and that's fine too. There's evolution at least. The [W3C Mailing list](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/) has become active too.

weex commented

2023-03-22 20:45:49 +00:00

Owner

So frustrating. Again, the eternal page loading notice at ActivityPub.rocks ☹️

@tallship I can see that SocialHub reliability can be a problem for FEP but I'd recommend creating a separate issue to discuss this since it has little to do with any potential FEP -> W3C process.

> So frustrating. Again, the eternal page loading notice at ActivityPub.rocks ☹️ @tallship I can see that SocialHub reliability can be a problem for FEP but I'd recommend creating a separate issue to discuss this since it has little to do with any potential FEP -> W3C process.

weex commented

2023-03-22 20:49:18 +00:00

Owner

@narF Do you have any further questions? If not, you may close this issue.

Personally I like low-overhead, asynchronous, independent, bare-bones processes so am happy for FEPs to exist alongside many other standards.

If you still feel there should be a path from FEP to AP or a W3C recommendation, then this or perhaps a new issue would be a good place to make the case.

@narF Do you have any further questions? If not, you may close this issue. Personally I like low-overhead, asynchronous, independent, bare-bones processes so am happy for FEPs to exist alongside many other standards. If you still feel there should be a path from FEP to AP or a W3C recommendation, then this or perhaps a new issue would be a good place to make the case.

👍 1 ❤️ 1

circlebuilder commented

2023-03-23 09:36:00 +00:00

Owner

Personally I like low-overhead, asynchronous, independent, bare-bones processes so am happy for FEPs to exist alongside many other standards.

FWIW I created a wiki post on SocialHub that allows us to brainstorm about how we want to further organize our developer ecosystem. And it has a companion discussion thread (as well as a toot announcing that).

> Personally I like low-overhead, asynchronous, independent, bare-bones processes so am happy for FEPs to exist alongside many other standards. FWIW I created [a wiki post](https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/ideating-organization-structure-for-the-grassroots-fediverse-wiki/3037) on SocialHub that allows us to brainstorm about how we want to further organize our developer ecosystem. And it has a [companion discussion thread](https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/discuss-the-grassroots-fediverse-organization-structure/3038) (as well as [a toot announcing that](https://social.coop/@smallcircles/110071688629088597)).

👍 1

silverpill commented

2023-07-18 18:20:03 +00:00

Collaborator

Process for Including Extensions in Activity Streams 2.0 describes how publication of a FEP can be the first step for including an extension in the Activity Streams 2.0 context document:

https://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/draft-extensions-policy.html

**Process for Including Extensions in Activity Streams 2.0** describes how publication of a FEP can be the first step for including an extension in the Activity Streams 2.0 context document: https://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/draft-extensions-policy.html Related issue: https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/540#issuecomment-1623683629

Next steps for a proposal to become official W3C specs? #67