Hi all, couple of thoughts to add to the discussion here.
We’ve restarted the W3C SWICG (SocialWeb Incubator Community Group), in the sense of, we’ve re-activated the mailing list (it was disabled for years), and are planning to restart regular CG calls (monthly to start with, see the Doodle poll for preferred call times, the first one will probably be next week (week of Mon May 15)). Given that the group hasn’t met for a while, we’ll likely be holding CG chair re-elections shortly.
Activity has also picked up on the core spec repositories. Evan Prodromou (@eprodrom), editor of the ActivityStreams 2 Core spec and author on the ActivityPub spec, has recently been going through the open issues, and updating the spec Wiki (with errata, implementation guidance, etc).
While I do think reviving the W3C SocialWeb CG may be useful (for those sections of the Fediverse that are W3C-friendly, or as a step in the process of potentially chartering another SocialWeb Working Group and updating the specs sometime in the future), I also want to acknowledge that the current nexus of discussion and specification work resides here, on SocialHub, and on the FEP repo. (And also want to give a shout-out to the Fediverse Devs Matrix channel.)
Far from wanting to split the community, I’m personally strongly committed to making sure the SocialWeb CG is aware of, and is working closely with, SocialHub, FEP, Fedidevs, and any other existing communities.
So why do I bring up the CG on this thread? One reason is, to invite all the folks here interested in advancing the state of the AP/AS specs, to join the discussions starting up the community group.
Two – personally, I think that this very moment is not the best time to try and charter an AP 2.0 spec or a new Working Group, and it probably makes more sense to continue to work in shorter specs on the FEP repo.
But that’s just a current personal opinion, the community might have other strong preferences.