SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 14 May 2014

<tantek> http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html

<scribe> scribe: hhalpin

Intro to W3C, assuming charter goes to AC without hitch then work starts June

arnaud: ex-W3C member, not a technical expert in space, but have a good reputation for driving WGs
... we at IBM want to see this interested re OpenSocial.

evanpro: I've been working on OStatus, Federated Social Web, Status.Net, been working with various communities
... what I can bring to the table is some fine-grained understanding of what works
... and keeping us track for real implementable and usable systems
... we want real standards for real software

tantek: I'm Tantek, I work for Mozilla more history at W3C than anyone else here
... was involved in CSS in 1998
... worked on web browsers, worked on HTML, XForms, and more recently WebApps and SysApps
... I'm pretty sure I was asked to cochair due to IndieWeb movement
... and a very different approach to doing formats and protocols
... a strong bias towards implementing ASAP and using it on your site
... getting working stuff that was implemented several years
... ago, pushing for less rather than more
... in all areas, process too
... and on AB!

Mark: I work for SAP responsible for social and semantic standards and engagement
... I was in federal-funded research where I was also AC rep
... I've been participating in Social Business Group
... working on various white papers
... from a SAP perspective, we want to move this forward
... we have SAP Jam in the business space
... we want to go after 85% of unstructured business work
... got quite a bit of experience chairing, but not in W3C
... mostly around XML and semantic technologies
... we want to drive the use-cases
... moving around the process a social business architecture

<tantek> Harry: don't want to repeat what happened in web services

<tantek> … want to keep it lean and mean

<tantek> … see if we can make that (what Tantek & Evan got working) work

<tantek> … there's a lot of grass roots hacker stuff getting uptake

<tantek> … we don't want to see a big company or 2-3 get a monopolistic control in this space

<tantek> … on the day to day running of the wg we have differences of opinion

<tantek> … I am a fan of both models

<tantek> … both w3c weekly telcon model

<tantek> … and a model where you do everything over email or IRC

<tantek> … what I typically do is as soon as things are mature, I recommend transitioning

<tantek> … in the beginning with a diverse audience

<tantek> … I think the socializations aspect of telcons help

<tantek> … also helpful when specs are not as mature as we want

<tantek> … and not getting implementation or need to discuss hard issues

<tantek> … wg in the beginning kind of a rough patch

<tantek> … eventually we get to implementable work

<tantek> … preference is to begin with weekly or biweekly telcon

<tantek> … and then based on how implementation is going

<tantek> … switch to a "WebApps-like" mode

<tantek> … for the WG

<tantek> ... However for the IG

<tantek> … telcons make more sense

<tantek> … since it's about trying to figure out use-cases

<tantek> … and discuss use-cases

mark: biweekly makes sense
... weekly would turn people off

<tantek> (harry, hope my minutes above for you were ok)

mark: within IG we need to build participation levels
... along with who is going to work on what
... downstream, within particular workstreams
... depends on the individuals in the interest group

evanpro: is it reasonable to do roadmap of where we see this going?
... first A, B, C.

we could do roadmap while we're under AC vote

<tantek> I'm going to suggest the following "shortnames": socialwg and socialig

some clear dependencies between syntax and API and federation

evanpro: but they will be kinda dependent on the social data syntax
... so start with syntax, then get that to a form we feel comfortable with, then start other two in parallel

tantek: just documenting existing work
... to see what things are varying degrees of success
... then look at next steps
... both me and EvanP has been burned and gotten stuff working

<Mark> I am good with socialig

<tantek> Thanks Mark

evanpro: I'd be happy to work on a roadmap
... bringing other people in like Diaspora
... don't want the syntax to be a big mashup
... don't know if we can do a comprehensive
... don't want to do things from scratch

arnaud: I agree, I'm opinionated
... I'd like to pick a technology
... I think we have a general overview of candidates
... we want a very material proposal
... we did that mistake in LDP solution
... shoving it down people's throat

tantek: I would time box
... got 2 weeks or 1 months

<evanpro> +1 on timeboxing

tantek: here's what we focus on WG
... then we just jump in discussion
... doesn't mean we stop people from documenting
... that avoids problems of that happening forever
... as far as pick a technology to go with
... we need to be harsh about things that don't have real implementations
... this is what the IG needs to do, what's the use-cases
... for opensocial

notes that we have some notes to specs in the charter

evanpro: we have little consensus around API and federation
... at least social API has opensocial work
... so that does work with activitystreams
... but the federation needs to cover the other leg in this triangle
... lightweight
... and quick to implement and quick to get out
... federated social web did some catalogs

<tantek> I've created top level wiki pages for both socialwg and socialig: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg and https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig

<tantek> harry, I propose having this: http://www.w3.org/Social/WG redirect to this: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg

evanpro: happy to do that

<tantek> and I propose having this: http://www.w3.org/Social/IG redirect to this: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig

I agree

will try to do that, may be hard before WG is approved

but we'll run the web-page as a wiki for the WG and IG

tantek: it's a myth
... the WG tends to do wiki-page and IRC channel
... so we have IRC logs
... and a bot where we leave messages for each other

arnaud: the meeting is a useful for the heartbeat
... to remind people of where we are and what needs to be done
... at times we discuss lots of issue
... sometimes the bndwidth of the phone helps
... I can't believe that's sufficient on its on.

tantek: What do we do about work that doesn't get done?
... all work that is on wiki
... anyone can jump forward
... and do work
... and then people come in and out
... no ownership means that everyone has ownership and agency
... I'd rather not remind people to get work done
... remind people where we are
... that's hard
... that has been answered by wikipage
... that explains it
... we do have f2f meetings
... in indieweb
... the telecons are informative forums
... they need get a feel for whos who
... and makes things
... happen
... from an emotional perspective/telcos rather than tech discussions
... that might work

arnaud: a lot of what I do is explain next step, w3c process
... its herding cats
... making sure people deliver
... in practice we have to keep WGs to their promise
... so if it's anyone, its nobody

tantek: that's a signal that's a dead-end
... then that tech or format deserves to die

arnaud: only true to a certain level
... sometimes people would like to do
... but they don't have experience or don't have time

tantek: I don't know process, I don't know how to specify
... that is useful
... that deserves documentation and use-cases
... rather than focussing on some consensus
... that the group hands to some individual
... not much interest in cat-herding

I propose get telcos for both social ig and social wg

biweekly or weekly?

and then move to a more online forum

evanpro: weekly for first month

<tantek> ACTION: harry http://www.w3.org/Social/WG redirect to this: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/14-social-minutes.html#action01]

evanpro: after that go for once a month

<tantek> ACTION: Harry http://www.w3.org/Social/IG redirect to this: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/14-social-minutes.html#action02]

evanpro: we do more than one a month

tantek: I agree with getting started we need to socialize more
... get people used to workmode
... how to agree on a workmode
... how does group work at all?
... how do people join?
... clarify very quick in a telco with chairs can help guide
... later on if there are contentious and unresolved issues
... then we do it on the phone
... if mailing list stops working
... in terms of progress
... that has in my experience how we get unstuck
... actual tech discussions on phone calls I'd be surprised by

<tantek> I also move that all minutes of our meetings (including this one) be publicly archived

agreed

<Mark> agreed

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

14 May 2014

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output