search

swicg / general

General issue tracker for the group
https://www.w3.org/community/swicg/
44 stars 2 forks source link

Portability Task Force - Where do how #31

Open bumblefudge opened 1 year ago

bumblefudge commented 1 year ago

The minutes of our breakout call on [Account and/or Data] Portability at TPAC are a little thin on resolutions or group decisions (which is probably for the best, maybe people can progress towards consensus on goals and first steps in this thread?): https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-social-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary The one thing that seemed consensual (at least for the small number of attendees) was that starting from use-cases would be a great start, and tracking solutions/features against use-cases. Follow-up for this was on the agenda for yesterday's meeting but got crowded out a bit my some meta-process talk, understandably. Ironically, it got crowded out by the very question of where and how the CG could decide what a Portability Task Force's inputs and outputs and way of working would be.

Some questions:

  1. Anyone volunteering to convene the task force, herd cats, track issues and consensus and deliverables? I feel like many people at last week's FediForum might be interested and/or qualified, but it's a big time commitment so maybe someone whose dayjob overlaps with portability-in-the-public-good could justify it to their payroll? @lisad ? @mhoye ? @mchrisriley ? @erlend_sh ?
  2. anyone interested in synthesizing or indexing existing usecases already explored in some detail by threads like this one on SH or this FEP or this other FEP? I volunteered to do exactly this but won't be able to get to it for at least another week or two.
  3. should there be a repo in this org for the TF to work on, say, use-case documents, link-lists to prior art and external discussions, etc etc? I personally am more comfortable working with markdown and git than wiki syntax and w3c.org, but that's just one data point. i defer to future task force convener here!
lisad commented 1 year ago

My conclusion as regards portability work is that the OAuth stuff (and other pieces that are already written down and in fact interoperable) should be done first anyway. OAuth is an important building block for some portability use cases. I am happy to support that work as it is needed anyway.

I'd be happy to contribute use case work especially relating to individual end-user content portability. I think I speak for Chris when I say I'd be the one doing use cases writeups or technical spec work rather than him. Mike can make his own decisions but has a bunch of other stuff on his plate.

Thanks for highlighting a couple FEPs, I had on my TODO list the item "figure out which FEPs I need to understand first" and I will start with the ones you linked. That said, and relating back to my first para, I am under the impression that these items are not already interoperable and I'd like to get the already-interoperable-not-yet-standardized stuff done first for everybody's sanity.

Lisa

On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 5:38 AM Bumblefudge @.***> wrote:

The minutes of our breakout call on [Account and/or Data] Portability at TPAC are a little thin on resolutions or group decisions (which is probably for the best, maybe people can progress towards consensus on goals and first steps in this thread?): https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-social-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary The one thing that seemed consensual (at least for the small number of attendees) was that starting from use-cases would be a great start, and tracking solutions/features against use-cases. Follow-up for this was on the agenda for yesterday's meeting but got crowded out a bit my some meta-process talk, understandably. Ironically, it got crowded out by the very question of where and how the CG could decide what a Portability Task Force's inputs and outputs and way of working would be.

Some questions:

  1. Anyone volunteering to convene the task force, herd cats, track issues and consensus and deliverables? I feel like many people at last week's FediForum might be interested and/or qualified, but it's a big time commitment so maybe someone whose dayjob overlaps with portability-in-the-public-good could justify it to their payroll? @lisad https://github.com/lisad ? @mhoye https://github.com/mhoye ? @mchrisriley https://github.com/mchrisriley ? @erlend_sh ?
  2. anyone interested in synthesizing or indexing existing usecases already explored in some detail by threads like this one on SH https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/nomadic-identity-for-the-fediverse/2101/24 or this FEP https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/7628/fep-7628.md or this other FEP https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/ae97/fep-ae97.md? I volunteered to do exactly this but won't be able to get to it for at least another week or two.
  3. should there be a repo in this org for the TF to work on, say, use-case documents, link-lists to prior art and external discussions, etc etc? I personally am more comfortable working with markdown and git than wiki syntax and w3c.org, but that's just one data point. i defer to future task force convener here!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/swicg/general/issues/31, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADWH4PZS674K4QSNHAAXWLX6FELTAVCNFSM6AAAAAA5W24ZMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZRHEZTCMZQGAYTGOI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

bumblefudge commented 1 year ago

good point re prioritization. it's a stitch in time anyways because there's an authN assumption in today's masto Move function which breaks if authN isn't smoothly interoperable, so it's maybe a precondition to making that stabler anyways.

@aaronpk mentioned on another call doing some work comparing oauth setups in the wild today with more recent stuff coming out of ietf, and/or proposing an upgrade path or vNext profile. maybe that work is already underway or would be easier shared ? totally fine to retro-use case what's already happening (in terms of logging into other servers to comment, for ex.) just to have a baseline/test cases and such.

capjamesg commented 1 year ago

I apologize for the motion being crowded out in the last meeting. I should have been better at time boxing. I fully support a task force and I would love to hear from the community more on what deliverables make sense. The Data Transfer Initiative talks were a great start. Exploring Fediverse-specific solutions feels like a valuable investment of time. I think any such discussions should be seen through technical, UX, and social (in terms of the moderators who would be approving/denying transfer requests in the Fediverse).

I should note there are unique considerations for decentralized solutions that aren't federated, such as in the scenario where everyone has their own personal websites. If anyone is interested in discussing these more at this juncture, please share support. Otherwise, perhaps we reserve this until there are enough interested parties.

I invite anyone interested in chairing and/or participating to raise their hands or reach out to me (jamesg [at] jamesg [dot] blog), Dmitri, or Nightpool (co-chairs of the CG) if you have any questions.

I would love for the Data Transfer Initiative folks to participate in this task force!

dmitrizagidulin commented 1 year ago

I would love for the Data Transfer Initiative folks to participate in this task force!

Oh agreed, that would be fantastic! Let's see if we can reach out to em?

bumblefudge commented 1 year ago

Found this while combing through old minutes CTRL-Fing "resol" 😄