Post #1912301

2026-01-15 17:24 UTC

@darius @evan @julian > The idea is to make class 3 and 4 changes as well. It's a bad and unfair idea, is what i"m saying. Totally respect your position if you disagree. > And I think the fact of the charter getting approved by the CG represents consensus? Another half truth. CG consensus is entirely determined by the CG chair. There could be a vast majority against something, and if the CG Chair says there is consensus, there is. 'consensus' is very malleable due to this.

Replies (2)

@bengo@mastodon.social 2026-01-15 17:26

@darius @evan @julian The CG decision policy, ie the group which ostensibly decided to approve a charter, *requires* the chair be elected. The CG Chair has not been elected ever. And yet we are talking about what the CG has decided by consensus as determined by a completely different policy than the CG charter's decision policy requires. It's so clear an outcome was decided and all process that made that inconvenient is ignored, so I just can't let this misinfo spread that process requires WG.

Open ##1912302
@trwnh@mastodon.social 2026-01-19 07:50

@bengo > It's a bad and unfair idea [to make class 3 and 4 changes] [...] Totally respect your position if you disagree i'm not super familiar with the w3c process but from a pragmatic standpoint what do you do when userspace is already broken and nothing is class conformant? activitystreams was intended to describe streams of activities, and activitypub was intended for publishing activities to those streams of activities. no one in fedi does this. they syndicate posts and discard activities

Open ##1912308