Should we fork AS/AP specs to Codeberg, create vNext drafts?

I just commented on FEP issue Next steps for a proposal to become official W3C specs?

As can be seen in the notes of this pad as a kind of overview:

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.


not sure it should be done unless there’s any necessary changes that should be “upstreamed”. in which case, maybe a new charter with a clear purpose. it can’t be as vague as “the spec should be updated”.


I don’t think an update to the ActivityPub specification can be done in a reasonable time frame in a manner I would be satisfied with.

I think the approach of taking small steps, i.e. FEPs, is the correct approach at the moment. There are too many things happening to aim at creating a “central” document with any level of longevity.


It is to take care of these issues, and get something going in anticipation of maybe a new vNext initiative (at W3C or wherever). May not be be focused on vNext, just addressing amendments and corrections may already be valuable.

As I outlined in POLL: SocialHub Scope and Purpose? a 3-pronged parallel track makes sense to me, of:

  1. Open standards track → keep drafts until this gets underway, or turn forks into the new deal.
  2. FEP process
  3. Vocabulary extensions

I should mention in addition to the above, that a ton of people do not know that SocialHub community forum exists. Their interest for Fediverse leads them to the W3C repo’s and they find a dead wasteland. Having pointers that would lead them towards ongoing activity is also a help to ramp up FEP process activity and general discussions here.

If the W3C github repositories were to be integrated here, would it make a difference?

There’d be maintainers to the repo’s. Might find the maintainers of current GH repo’s as well, of course.

We actually have an access token to w3c/activitypub repo but not activitystreams. It would take a bit of work to setup in a useful manner, which is why it’s not yet ready. Maybe if someone from the @discourse team would help, then we could at least see if this option works for us.

@erlend_sh would you like to give a hand bootstrapping the GH plugin with me? We could take a couple of hours to sort things out and make it happen. Then at least we would be a step further.

Our “governance” is increasing going to be pushed and pulled in different directions, @how please hold onto #4opens in this #NGO #mainstreaming #fahernista #grassroots flows, thanks for your work.

I don’t work for Discourse any longer, so the Meta forum (and Angus & co. working on ActivityPub) is your best bet :slight_smile:

(Forum was down, hence this short reply by mail.)

1 Like

ActivityStreams and ActivityPub are W3C specifications, thus, the proper place for any formal discussion and maintenance is within the SWICG. It would not be appropriate to fork the specs and develop them outside that context. If one is concerned that SWICG is less than optimally active, then the best course of action would be to create activity on the list and suggest what needs to be done.

1 Like

Thanks. I will also include a link to the SWICG mailing list thread on the same subject:

Follow up is calling for a meeting: Let's meet. Was: Re: Should the specs be forked and maintained elsewhere? from Johannes Ernst on 2023-03-23 ( from March 2023)

Let’s get something done.

I declare myself bold enough to call a meeting with the following proposed coordinates:

Wednesday, March 29, 2023, 10-11am pacific daylight savings time.

Where: Sean’s Jitsi
Room “ActivityPub”. (I can’t spell swicg and neither can my spell checker)

Anybody on this list
Anybody who cares about the future of ActivityPub and related efforts
Anybody attending FediForum (we will declare this to be one session so hopefully some attendees will show up here)

Collect views on the future of ActivityPub (and related) standardization
Emerge with some sense of common direction (or be more clear about where disagreements may lie)
A couple of next steps

I’m offering to play facilitator for this one meeting (no promises beyond that) although I would gladly not do that if somebody else volunteers. I’m just tired of waiting :slight_smile:

That’s the straw proposal, please propose modifications.



It’s a good idea. Even if we don’'t plan to make any changes, it would be nice to have a backup in case something bad happens.

I have done some thinking about it, spurred on by people saying no on some mailing list somewhere.

I actually already “forked” the ActivityPub Specification. It’s here. So if somebody wants to create something, at least I will find incredibly valuable, finish this idea:

  • Create a fork of the specification repo
  • Add labels to all the things that an implementation should satisfy
  • Create a tool that takes a codebase and looks for markers and adds these to the implementation version of the spec.
  • Make it look good!!

One might take inspiration from ActivityPub Implementation Report

Could you add that at the bottom of the wiki post in the list that’s emerging, @helge ?

PS. I forgot who started a website to document AP development. It was a recent announcement, dedicated domain. Would like to gauge if they wanna join on Codeberg with that. Anyone?