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
But the CG is open to them and generally a new WG would be open to paying W3C members and whoever the (undefined) chairs decide to invite as IEs, team contact signs off on, perhaps some internal review, and this usually also involves requiring the IE to have funding for their participation. https://www.w3.org/invited-experts/
Assuming I understand the purpose of the new wg & cg — and I might not —
That seems backwards to me.
How can the wg & cg create a good specification without having the teams from all those Fediverse software involved?
Highly relevant information is in their heads and in their experience.
Also — is it a given that the different Fediverse software teams will implement a new specification just because the W3C "blesses" it? I think it is conceivable some might ignore it.
why would anyone give credits to the trash the w3c is?
so that later, thry can "bring all efforts" credible to the next level where it is again exclusive to members hired by the big tech capitalists who steered us into the mess we are in in the first place.
just like google captured XMPP back then and gmail captured email ...the same dorsey-musk will finish their move to make blsky/X/twitter/threads into the new web2 corporate overlord fediverse farce again.
@bengo@w3c you say, "new social web working group that would only be open to people who work at W3C member companies."
That's not correct.
Anyone can participate in W3C working groups as an invited expert or "IE". I was an IE on the Social Web Working Group, as was @cwebber@tsyesika@erincandescent and many of the other contributors.
@bengo one cool thing about the W3C and other open standards bodies is that the discussions are logged and transparent. You can read the minutes of the relevant meeting here:
@evan I'm familiar with the w3c. I disagree that the discussions are always logged and transparent. i.e. we can maximize transparency and accurate logging by recording the meetings or having an automated or paid scribe (which is what public-ccg does), which has been happening in some SWICG meetings but not this one.
@evan@w3c@cwebber@tsyesika@erincandescent I don't agree that it's correct that "Anyone can participate in W3C working groups as an invited expert"
Then I wouldn't be concerned. I think you're omitting the part where a Chair has to invite the IE. It would alleviate some of my concerns if any charter ensured that chairs MUST invite anyone who wants to to be an IE.
@bengo@w3c that's a super fair concern, but it feels like it would be a hard thing to write down correctly. Would picking the right chair for the process work?
@bengo@evan@w3c A charter which said the chairs would accept everyone would come with its own problems, because it allows assholes to invite themselves.
@erincandescent@evan@w3c sure, W3C Code of Conduct violations still apply. A special designation of asshole on top of that sounds like a hard thing to adjudicate.
@bengo@evan@w3c Far as I can identify, The W3C CEPC doesn't say anything about conduct outside the bounds of W3C channels; so no, thats not sufficient on its own
@erincandescent@evan@w3c Just so I understand. Is what you're saying that doing work in a WG will solve the problems of asshole conduct outside the bounds of W3C channels?
@bengo@evan@w3c no, what i'm saying is that there are certain people who if you admitted to the WG would absolutely result in others refusing to participate.
@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!)
@bengo@w3c I have to say I don’t have a huge amount of trust in the corporate standards body of surveillance capitalism but here’s hoping you’re right.
@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.
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.
@aral@bengoTransparency I mentioned minutes and meetings. I really like Ben's idea of recorded meetings and automated transcription. Doing other work, like regular public blogging or reporting, might also help a lot.
@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.
@aral@evan It's interesting. The W3C submitted an application for 501c3 status in Dec 2022, ostensibly volunteering to be regulated to ensure it serves the public interest.
@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@bengo obviously not just process but product has to be transparent. People should be able to see the outcome and see that we didn't insert some poison pills into the spec.
Add comment