In a few weeks @w3c social web community group meeting may receive a proposal to explore chartering new social web working group that would only be open to people who work at W3C member companies. (The CG is open to all). Today there was an in person discussion at TPAC, the yearly W3C-wide f2f. It was a day-of addition to the agenda. Now is a good time to join the CG, subscribe to mailing list, and start participating in the discussions. https://www.w3.org/community/SocialCG/ #vote #activitypub
@aral @w3c The CG is open to all of us and generally should seek consensus for all decisions. You can disagree on list and in the open meeting (as long as it’s a CG and not a WG).
This is one proposal by one person, not a @w3c action, and it will fail to reach consensus as long as at least one person expresses concern/objection, eg a concern that a WG could de facto capture the fediverse. Trust the process (or not!)
@aral @bengo so, I would like to make iterative changes to the ActivityPub and Activity Streams 2.0 documents that make them easier to read and use for software developers.
I wonder if there are some guardrails we could put on that process that would let us get those benefits to the fediverse without ruining it for everyone.
Here are some thoughts.
**Participation**. Ben mentioned this up front. We'd need to make sure that a wide array of people can participate in decision-making; not just representatives of W3C member organisations.
(I think it's noteworthy that W3C members are not all tech companies. Lots of libraries, universities, Open Source foundations, and similar participants. See https://www.w3.org/membership/list/ ).
Keeping most of the work in the CG, and just using WG for limited doc editing, is probably a good idea here.
@evan @bengo These all sound good, Evan. The only thing I’d add, which is unrealistic, is open acknowledgment that some of the W3C members are actually threats to the fediverse and should not be included in this. I’m thinking Google. I’m thinking Facebook. I’m thinking surveillance capitalists in general. And the reason it’s unrealistic is because the W3C is primarily the standards body of these surveillance capitalists. They’re the paid up members. This is a problem.
@bengo @aral @evan
means nothing.
not all 501c3's are the same.
The web is hostile towards peer to peer. Why?
Because of the way it is made and governed.
You need to find people who support a specific way of doing things. A shared purpose.
Corporations should not be part of that, especially not those big tech folks that brought the web to where it is today
@aral @evan @bengo
and lets not forget other members of the W3C, like....
w3c means e.g. adobe, airbnb, alibaba, amazon, apple, AT&T, Autodesk, Avast, Cisco, Cloudflare, Comcast, Google, Huawei, IBM, Intel, Lenovo, LG, Mastercard, Meta, Mitsubishi, Netflix, Microsoft, Nvidia, Oracle, Qualcomm, Salesforce, Samsung, SAP, Shopify, Siemens, Softbank, Sony, Tencent, Verisifn, Viacom, VISA, Volkawagen, Volvo, Disney, Yahoo, Zoom, ... next to others
@aral @evan @bengo this is also anecdotal on my end and i should join the social cg, but i climbed up to eventually work at a member company and looked forward to participating in w3c when i finally did, but when i got there— i didn’t like knowing what i went through to be able to walk through the door, so i never knocked.
so if i had to put to thought what i’m feeling— is w3c the right engine to be investing social energy, when my personal energy is frailer than corporate strategy?
@evan @aral @bengo very big— i’m active in dweb circles and the fediverse and i’m grateful for AP and the network we’re on thanks to w3c social wg. thank you!
i try and focus my energy on even footing, where the community group makes sense, but the wg for w3c members only doesn’t.
to me, it’s the difference between a peer to peer network and a client server relationship, only one of which i’m invested in, personally.
@aral@mastodon.ar.al @evan@cosocial.ca @bengo@mastodon.social i can't help but think about WHATWG as i read this.
as i see it, WHATWG was formed by the big players to sidestep W3C's process, and strongarm the W3C into adopting their standard, rather than focusing on fixing the standardization process and building something that would work for everyone. they have had de-facto control over HTML5 since, with W3C acting as little more than a rubber stamp (and deferring entirely to them from 2019 to date).
it is very hard to "trust the process" when it's been broken by power imbalances in the past