W3C has started monitoring levels of activity in Community Groups (all groups actually) by watching mailing list and github traffic. Since the SocialCG doesn’t use a mailing list, and has work spread out in places other than https://github.com/swicg the monitoring tools basically make the group look abandoned (thanks @Sebastian for noticing this).
I’ve reached out to the W3C systems team, who do want to support the CG’s work mode better (and in the meantime have disabled the misleading activity chart on the CG homepage).
One thing that other CGs I’ve been involved with have is a process for including work items under the remit of the CG. This often involves moving or creating a repo under the CG’s gh organisation, but I’d understand if folks working on adjacent projects didn’t want to move their repos (or even use github).
Anyway, first I want to ask if we were to create a list of projects that we could consider under the remit of the CG, what to include? Any thoughts on criteria? An advantage for projects to be “CG projects” might include wider exposure, and time to discuss issues at CG meetings, but I’m not sure how attractive that is.
And if anyone else has any thoughts about this generally? Perhaps this extremely loose organisation is working for everone, and we shouldn’t try to introduce more process. But if we look like an active CG from the W3C’s perspective, we may get more visibility (and thus more participation) from people approaching via W3C.