@silverpill @julian @feps I'm happy to look over this FEP, but we'll continue the work in the Groups TF. Would you be willing to submit it under the W3C community group CLA so we can include it in that Task Force's work?

@evan It depends on the terms of the agreement.

No agreement should be necessary, though - FEPs are in public domain, they can be implemented by anyone and can be included in other documents without restrictions.

Also, it is not clear what is the benefit of submitting a FEP to W3C. I already submitted it to the FEP repository, and this was always enough for everybody, including major players like Mastodon and Lemmy. These task forces look like totally unnecessary bureaucracy, I don't really have time for that.

@julian

@silverpill @feps @julian great question!

The W3C Community Group contributor license agreement goes beyond copyright -- it also covers patents and other intellectual property.

https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/cla/

It's great that FEPS are CC0 -- that makes it possible to redistribute the text freely verbatim or modified. However, it doesn't protect implementers from patents and other claims.

Preliminary look: The use of Relationship sounds kind of similar to the proposal for a Member or Membership entity to track properties of a Group's members. It's possible for something to be both a Member(ship) and a Relationship.

We want to support roles and permissions beyond just a hardcoded notion of "admin", "moderator", and so on, but we want to also cover a mapping from these concepts to the roughly equivalent permissions you might expect them to have (but with the recognition that different people have different expectations for this).

In this FEP, roles are not limited to "admin", "moderator", .... Custom roles and permissions are also allowed.