Existing resolutions

[evanp]

We have a number of resolutions made over the years visible at https://github.com/swicg/meetings/blob/main/RESOLUTIONS.md .

For the CG charter, we should either make sure the charter is compatible with those resolutions, or make sure that we explicitly obsolete them.

[bumblefudge]

I checked over them and the only two possible issues I see so far are that:

1. the discussions on 2024-08-02 about using "FEP needed" might align perfectly with the line in the new cg/wg document about CG "requesting" FEP before leaving Stage 0
2. I have no idea what happened to the Policy Group from 2021? Do Task Forces "stale out"?

Oh, that reminds me, we should probably PR in a definition of what a Task Force is, even if it's just a one-sentence reference to the W3C-wide definition of them, since we're already doing so many of them 😅

[gobengo]

we should either make sure the charter is compatible with those resolutions, or make sure that we explicitly obsolete them.

Can you explain why the charter should do that? I hear the recommendation, but don't see the explanation. Without an explanation, I'd say let's not block on this if we don't have to.

If the concern is to avoid ambiguity about incompatibilities, I can see that. I'd assume charter in general would always trump resolutions. At the same time, I don't expect there will be many conflicts.

IMO let's do nothing or include one sentence "If this charter conflicts with any resolutions, the charter takes precedence. The group should create a report for each conflict."

Is there a specific resolution you worry would be in conflict with a specific potential charter?

[evanp]

@gobengo I would say that the existing resolutions define how we've operated since forming. If we are changing the way we operate, we need to decide if the previous decisions still apply, or if they don't.

Going through the resolutions in reverse order, here are some that seem relevant:

• Accept majority of straw poll as SocialCG for group shortname.
• _Use https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_extensions as the directory for extensions that links to them wherever authors want to write them up (github repo, wiki, personal site), and then use github issues for issue discussions._
• Create an activitypub-extensions repo under the SWICG GitHub org in order to discuss AP extensions. Move existing "postponed (revisit in future effort)" discussions there. Create a separate repository if we want to actually write out some spec text for an extension.
• RESOLVED (pending acceptance from jasnell): Discuss and curate ActivityStreams extensions in the ActivityStreams git(hub) repository, with normal issues / PRs, etc
• The CG will maintain an editors' draft of the AS2 document, applying the editorial changes listed in the ERRATA document
• The SocialCG should support the FEP (Fediverse Enhancement Proposal) process as a way of documenting extensions to the fediverse and encourage bringing FEP proposals for discussion to the SocialCG.
• the remit of the Policy Group is primarily to liase with existing digital/tech political lobbying groups to bring awareness of relevant standards and W3C recommendations which can then be relayed at the right times and in the right places to politicians and policy makers. As part of this, the Policy Group may organise events, briefings, draft documentation, proposals, or open letters which can be co-signed by the SocialCG.
• SocialCG starts up a Website Taskforce to update activitypub.rocks and as2.rocks (only). Bandwidth permitting. And set up a process for future updates.