SocialCG/WG Charter Discussion

From W3C Wiki

Welcome to the brainstorming page for collecting thoughts, methodologies, opinions for chartering a new W3C Social Web Working Group.

Please remember the W3C code of conduct when making contributions and edits.

This page is not a charter, formal or otherwise, CG or WG.

This page is for collecting diverse and broad input for consideration for a working group charter.

About Working Groups

Note that W3C typically charters working groups for implementers to work with each other to write and update specifications to achieve greater interoperability. Chairs and spec editors are often not implementers themselves, however often they are, as implementers have a strong active interest in moving specifications forward and iterating toward convergence of spec functionality for greater interoperability.

In recent years, W3C working groups also typically coordinate with one or more community groups that help incubate new or single-implementer ideas, until some degree of proof of concept (that user problems are actually being solved) and multi-implementer interest is indicated, at which point such proposals are considered for inclusion in a working group for standardization. There are many such pairs of CGs/WGs operating at W3C today, such as Immersive Web. Such relationships are documented in the liaisons section.

The brainstorming subsections are roughly organized by the key sections that would go into a formal charter (see the W3C charter template), especially as discussed in recent Social CG meetings.

  • Scope
  • Deliverables
  • Liaisons

Scope

About this section: please provide general statements like "narrow", "broad", "widely adopted" and preferably also methodology and reasoning etc. Please avoid mentions of particular specs here because that's what the Deliverables section is for.


Deliverables

This section describes what tasks a WG would complete.

Spec Name Active Editor(s) Editor(s) Interested in WG Participation? (y/n/?) W3C Status Active Test Suite Implementation Report # of Implementations in Report Estimated # Implementations in Wild Scope Description
ActivityPub Evan Prodromou Evan - y Recommendation n report 13 - Errata modifications, clarify ambiguities in the spec
rel=me Tantek Çelik Tantek - y External spec maintained by microformats n n/a n/a n/a Codify rel=me into a full specification
IndieAuth Aaron Parecki Aaron - y Note n n 15+ servers, 16+ clients - Move changes made in the Living Standard to the WG for consideration on the Standards Track. Note: David interested in helping generally.
Ticket Auth no official appointed editor, James willing to help, David Shanske also (who worked on the draft spec) David - y, James interested in assisting External draft spec maintained by the IndieWeb community n n/a n/a n/a Work toward achieving multiple interoperable implementations of Ticket Auth, refine spec
HTTP Message Signatures Profile for ActivityPub No existing spec, existing implementations in AP S2S n Document a profile of HTTP Signatures for use in ActivityPub server-to-server
OAuth Profile for ActivityPub clients Evan Prodromou Initial draft as FEP-d8c2 n Document a profile of OAuth for use by ActivityPub clients
ActivityStreams 2.0 Evan Prodromou Evan - y Recommendation y y 16 - ?
Activity Vocabulary Evan Prodromou ? Recommendation y y 16 - ?
Webmention Aaron Parecki ? Recommendation y y 21 - ?
Micropub Aaron Parecki ? Recommendation y y 13+ clients, 34 servers - Move stable extensions into specification? Note: David interested in helping generally.
WebSub Aaron Parceki ? Recommendation - - - - ?
Linked Data Notifications ? ? Recommendation y y 16 receivers, 7 consumers - ?
Post Type Discovery Tantek Çelik assessing state of current implementations first Note n n 4 implementations - ?
JF2 Kevin Marks Kevin - y Note Validator tool n 6+ - ?
Fragmention Kevin Marks Kevin - y Draft spec n n 13+ - ?
[blank row -- copy this to add a new entry]

Charter Considerations

  • AP changes should have a limited scope based on the needs of the community.
    • Other specs can still have a wider scope without affecting the AP scope. Scope can be defined per specification.

Previous Social Web WG Specs and Notes

Listed below are all of the specifications and Notes published by the previous Social WG.

Specs

Notes

  • IndieAuth
  • Post Type Discovery
  • JF2
  • Social Web Protocols

Specs New to a WG

List your ideas for new specifications below.

Incubations for Consideration

Incubations are early-stage ideas that are not yet ready to be drafted into an existing specification or written into its own specification. Incubations will happen in the CG. With sufficient interest by the community and a WG, an incubation could be written into its own or an existing specification.

List ideas for incubations below.

  • ...

Liaisons

  • Social Web Incubator Community Group — for incubating proposals for consideration for standardization. Some guidelines should be documented for when a CG proposal would be considered for uplifting into a WG for standardization.
  • IETF groups
  • Other W3C groups
    • ...
  • Other communities
    • ActivityPub forums
    • Data Transfer Initiative is currently discussing data portability and related moderation concerns.
    • ...
Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion&oldid=116488"