#1112: [wg/social] Social Web Working Group new charter
Discussions
Log in to see TAG-private discussions.
Discussed
Jun 30, 2025 (See Github)
Sarven: I drafted a reply that will go into the w3c/strategy repo. There are no major architectural concerns. Clarifying comments around what they mean by 'maintenance'. Some other HR comments that I agree with - to update Considerations sections.
... The original WG came about 10 or so years ago. This is a new charter to maintain some of the specs in there - following the SWICG. By default they're taking the same specs that were proposed as input. Other HR is saying that we now have a bunch of questionnaires that didn't exist back then, so please update your Considerations sections when it happens. Make sure things are aligned with Explainer Explainer guidance.
... I created an issue mentioning the groups and organisations they should try to co-ordinate with. Currently only mentions the CG. The DID group proposed some vocab that was being maintained by the CG - so WG may need to potentially work with those groups.
... There were a bunch of specs proposed in the end, with some overlap. Some different types of communities that came together and some did their own thing. There's a suggestion that they should make some effort to bridge between these different solutions.
... Jeffrey agreed - I incorporated his changes into the draft.
... The HR review deadline is upon us. Can I post the comment?
Martin: Send it - it helps to make the charter better.
Matthew: +1
Sarven: Ack.
Sarven: Should it be satisfied with concerns, or satisfied?
Martin: They're relatively minor, but use your judgement. Generally 'with concerns' means that we really want to see them make those changes.
Sarven: I think in this case 'with concerns' is appropriate.
OpenedJun 11, 2025
This issue was created because the 'horizontal review requested' label was added to § https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/435
This review is requested prior to the Advisory Committee Review.
New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.
Charter Review
Charter
diff from charter template
diff with charter proposed by CG
If applicable:
diff from previous 1018 group charter
chair dashboard
What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.
Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, and security. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.
Communities suggested for outreach:
Social Web CG.
Known or potential areas of concern:
lack of consensus within the Community on the scope of the charter.
Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? (this strategy funnel issue, a different github repo, email, ...)
Use w3c/charter-drafts
Anything else we should think about as we review?
Nope
Charter facilitator(s)
cc @plehegar