Portability Task Force - Where do how #31
Comments
|
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
<#31>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADWH4PZS674K4QSNHAAXWLX6FELTAVCNFSM6AAAAAA5W24ZMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZRHEZTCMZQGAYTGOI>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
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. |
|
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! |
Oh agreed, that would be fantastic! Let's see if we can reach out to em? |
Found this while combing through old minutes CTRL-Fing "resol" 😄 |
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:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: