@bengo @evan @julian The idea is not just to make class 1 and 2 changes per 6.2.6. The idea is to make class 3 and 4 changes as well. That was in scope of what we discussed during the many meetings about the WG charter.

And I think the fact of the charter getting approved by the CG represents consensus? I wouldn't have agreed to be chair of a group I felt was illegitimate. (I know the consensus does not reflect unanimous consensus. I'm okay with that.)

@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.

@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.

@darius @evan @julian And I'm extremely disappointed in w3c staff for completely disregarding and failing to enforce the charter, and moreso in leadership in our community for failing to even have a decision policy, agreeing to one, and then ignoring its requirements when inconvenient.

@bengo @evan @julian I do not agree with your analysis of the situation post, say, January 2025 when I started to get involved in things. Prior to that (esp regarding CG chair selection) I was not involved and can't make any claims. My goal here is to get the standard to a place where its current shortcomings are addressed, and it is more widely implemented. (I'm trying to stay neutral on what those shortcomings are. I want to the CG to figure that out and make proposals alongside the WG.)

@bengo @julian @darius @dmitri That doesn't ring a bell. Checking my email archives, I see your announcement of activitypub-testing on 15 Jan and you declined the AP issue triage on 17 Jan.

@bengo @julian @darius @dmitri I don't think private email is the right way to work on ActivityPub or Activity Streams, anyways. If you think something went wrong with one of the errata or the editors' draft, you should definitely open an issue on GitHub or post to the public-swicg mailing list. You've been active in those discussions, so that's probably a great way to talk about it.

@bengo @julian @darius @dmitri I also think backwards compatibility is important. It would be catastrophic to announce an incompatible next version that doesn't work with the existing millions of users and tens of thousands of servers. If we add new features, like LOLA, they'd have to be compatible with the network as it is now.

@evan @julian @darius @dmitri this isn't the first time you've claimed to not receive an email I sent from gmail and got no undeliverability notice for. You should fix your self hosted mail setup.

Beyond that, I'm finding it hard to reconcile your public position that private email is not the right way to work on these things when you have sent me so many private emails e.g. about how I should sign an NDA with Facebook to come work with you and them on ActivityPub and ActivityStreams.

@bengo I regret losing your email. It was clearly important. I'm sorry.

@bhaugen update: this is the best place for relevant information and to provide feedback. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2026Jan/0016.html