Koala Yeung

Related to #2.

@cwebber: Please correct me if I represented it wrong. (OMG. So many typo. I should sleep now)

The [SocialCG meeting](https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2018-06-06) also talked about having a formal w3c work group for this specification. Or even host discussion within the existing ActivityPub work group.

Agreed,

I initially thought Fork and PR can be defined as types of Activity. If you think about how we usually work with git services, we actually subscribe to repositories and...

I do not oppose to the notion "user being an actor". It would be interesting to see all Git web service join the federverse in long run (e.g we can...

@bill-auger: According to the [ActivityStream's Vocabulary spec](https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#actor-types), `Actors` are "Object types that are capable of performing activities". They have defined these core actor types: * Application * Group * Organization...

We might also describe commits as activity that involves 2 actor: the User and the Branch. So you may select which one to subscribe to if needed.

@arucard21: I thought of the 2 major case like this: ## Forking 1. Ken has a repository "foobar/hello" on Server A. 2. Lennon wants to fork this repository. He has...

@arucard21: In the Pull Request flow above, since changes are done on a specific branch, and not entire repository. So it seems only intuitive to also make branch an actor.