Contribution of Activity Streams 2.0 to W3C, Please Read

83 views
Skip to first unread message

James M Snell

unread,
Aug 5, 2014, 4:34:12 PM8/5/14
to activity...@googlegroups.com
If you have contributed to Activity Streams 1.0 and 2.0, please
indicate if you have any particular objection to the contribution of
Activity Streams 2.0 to the W3C Social Web WG.

Over the next week, I will be going through the mailing list archives
to determine the names and employing organizations of anyone who has
contributed to 2.0. If you want to make sure your name is on the list,
lemme know! :-)

- James

Evan Prodromou

unread,
Aug 5, 2014, 6:46:52 PM8/5/14
to activity...@googlegroups.com
Evan Prodromou, E14N (formerly StatusNet Inc). I think I've critiqued a couple of features. We did a round of OWFa agreements for 1.0 but happy to do a new one if needed.

Evan Prodromou
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Activity Streams" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to activity-strea...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to activity...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

Will Norris

unread,
Aug 5, 2014, 7:27:58 PM8/5/14
to activity-streams
I only managed Google's contribution during AS 1.0, but I don't have any objections.  I'm pretty sure Sam Goto will be fine with this as well (I don't recall if he contributed directly to AS 2.0, or just the ideas that were carried over from schema.org activities), but I'll certainly let him weigh in if he wants.

I don't know that anyone from Google is involved with the Social WG (yet), but I'm also not sure that that really matters either way.

Kevin Marks

unread,
Aug 6, 2014, 12:39:23 AM8/6/14
to activity-streams

I contributed while at Google, BT and Salesforce. Agreements still in effect

James M Snell

unread,
Aug 6, 2014, 12:43:16 AM8/6/14
to activity...@googlegroups.com
+1... all contributions up thru 1.0 are covered by the existing OWFa
agreements which is all clear. The task I have now is to simply
compile the list of names for folks who kicked in ideas around 2.0.
The overwhelming majority of that work was just folding in some of the
extensions that I had written and doing the JSON-LD alignment so
there's really not much that needs done. Just dotting all the i's :-)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages