19:57:02 RRSAgent has joined #social 19:57:02 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/05-social-irc 19:57:11 bblfish could you take minutes today? 19:57:15 Zakim, call for 30 at 16:00? 19:57:15 I don't understand your question, harry. 19:57:21 Zakim, space for 30 at 16:00 19:57:21 I don't understand 'space for 30 at 16:00', harry 19:57:37 yes, fine. I hope the connection is good 19:58:08 Zakim, space for 30 at 16:00? 19:58:09 ok, harry; conference Team_(social)20:00Z scheduled with code 7625 (SOCL) at 16:00 for 60 minutes until 2100Z 19:58:15 harry, tantek: are we scheduled for a full hour or half hour? 19:58:28 Just reviewing the agenda, I'm not sure. 19:58:44 Team_(social)20:00Z has now started 19:58:51 +jasnell 19:59:09 evanpro good q, I believe 60 minutes. Harry? 19:59:10 I’ll be joining in this time, just attempting to test SIP 19:59:18 +??P0 19:59:30 Zakim: +??P0 is me 19:59:34 +[IPcaller] 19:59:42 Zakim, what's the code? 19:59:42 the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry 20:00:00 MarkC has joined #social 20:00:12 +Arnaud 20:00:16 +[Mozilla] 20:00:17 +Lloyd_Fassett 20:00:24 Zakim, [Mozilla] has tantek 20:00:24 +tantek; got it 20:00:29 oh neat that worked! 20:01:04 I think I just came up as +[IPcaller] 20:01:07 +??P3 20:01:13 +Doug_Schepers 20:01:38 trackbot, start meeting 20:01:43 oh wait 20:01:47 trackbot has joined #social 20:01:57 +[IPcaller.a] 20:02:00 trackbot, start meeting 20:02:00 Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel. 20:02:02 Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin 20:02:02 +hhalpin; got it 20:02:18 trackbot, this is SOCL 20:02:18 Sorry, Arnaud, I don't understand 'trackbot, this is SOCL'. Please refer to for help. 20:02:24 Zakim, ??P3 is akuckartz 20:02:24 +akuckartz; got it 20:02:45 +??P8 20:03:01 actually, I think I'm IPcaller 20:03:03 someone is making weird noise 20:03:15 Zakim, ??P8 is mattmarum 20:03:15 +mattmarum; got it 20:03:54 trackbot, status 20:03:54 Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel. 20:03:58 MattMarum has joined #social 20:04:30 +??P10 20:05:14 Zakim, who is on the phone? 20:05:14 On the phone I see jasnell, ??P0, hhalpin, Arnaud, [Mozilla], Lloyd_Fassett, akuckartz, Doug_Schepers, [IPcaller.a], mattmarum, ??P10 20:05:16 [Mozilla] has tantek 20:05:21 I’m in! I can hear someone going “mwah mwah mwah” 20:05:30 Zakim, ??P0 is oshepherd 20:05:30 +oshepherd; got it 20:05:32 bblfish are you on the phone? 20:05:42 I am listening in with Harry 20:05:46 Zakim, hhalpin has bblfish 20:05:46 +bblfish; got it 20:06:05 I'm on the phone; I think I was IPcall and wonder if hhalpin was actually IPcaller.a (not sure it matters) 20:06:18 Zakim, jtauber is IPcaller 20:06:18 sorry, harry, I do not recognize a party named 'jtauber' 20:06:31 chair: tantek 20:06:35 ok 20:06:35 scribe: bblisfh 20:06:47 scribe: bblfish 20:07:00 Zakim, who is scribe? 20:07:00 I don't understand your question, tantek. 20:07:01 +MarkC 20:07:02 Zakim, who's on the phone? 20:07:02 On the phone I see jasnell, oshepherd, hhalpin, Arnaud, [Mozilla], Lloyd_Fassett, akuckartz, Doug_Schepers, [IPcaller.a], mattmarum, ??P10, MarkC 20:07:04 hhalpin has bblfish 20:07:04 [Mozilla] has tantek 20:07:25 do I need to be registered somehow for Zakim to be happy? 20:07:36 intermittently 20:07:41 is he speaking now? 20:07:44 not hearing anything at the moment 20:07:47 having trouble dialing in. it hung up on me. 20:07:54 topic: review past actions items 20:07:56 SO CLEAR, tantek 20:07:57 +Mike_Elledge 20:08:00 aaronpk: I’m having success using jitsi 20:08:08 my other sip client didn’t work 20:08:14 TPAC2014 WG f2f scheduling - harryh 20:08:17 yes, its clearer tantek 20:08:21 Background: We agreed on 2 days WG f2f last week 20:08:26 Question: which days in particular? 20:08:29 +1 Ed Krebs back 20:08:30 + +1.503.342.aaaa 20:08:35 Question: when will http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/ be updated to list Social Web WG? 20:08:44 zakim, aaaa is aaronpk 20:08:44 +aaronpk; got it 20:08:49 happy to address this when your ready Tantek 20:10:06 Topics are https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-08-05 20:10:27 Topic: TPAC2014 WG f2f scheduling 20:10:55 Harry: Santa Clara TPAC is open 20:11:02 ... but can't move the days 20:11:42 ... you just have to go to ... 20:11:55 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2014/ 20:12:04 people can also request to participate as observers 20:12:11 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2014/ 20:12:19 I think I may just update static update myself 20:12:22 chairs will accommodate room permitting 20:12:25 http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/ needs updating 20:12:47 harry: can update the tpac info 20:13:42 KevinMarks has joined #social 20:13:46 q? 20:13:56 just type +q 20:13:56 http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ 20:13:56 q+ 20:13:58 q+ aaronpk 20:14:13 so I can do 20:14:13 q+ 20:14:17 and to get off 20:14:17 q- 20:14:23 ack raises 20:14:25 ack his 20:14:32 ack shepazu 20:14:58 can you ping me his details? 20:15:00 shepazu: suggesting an irc logger? 20:15:17 here: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ 20:15:21 http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ 20:15:23 ack aaronpk 20:15:52 aaronpk: also has a suggestion he is going to post in the channel 20:15:52 http://indiewebcamp.com/irc/today 20:16:47 I prefer aaronpk's bot off top of my head 20:16:59 Won't RRSAgent work? 20:17:00 tantek: any objections to aaronpk doing a 24h log of the archives? 20:17:18 Thanks! 20:17:33 harry - you're breaking up 20:17:36 +1 for Loqi logging permanently. Excellent logs 20:17:41 can't hear harry anymore 20:17:57 Arnaud: harry are you sure systeam cant do the loggin 20:17:59 harry please repeat 20:17:59 last 2-3 sentence 20:17:59 s 20:18:13 Actually, I sent a syqreq request 20:18:50 And I'll put aaron in touch with systeams to see if we can logs in W3C space 20:19:02 but lets have aaron log things *right now* in indiewebcamp.com space 20:19:10 you mean publish the logs later on a w3c url? sounds good. 20:19:12 we are already having some intersting conversations 20:19:13 yep 20:19:24 harry: the sys team does not have a bot, they have not been approached, but we could put aaronpk in touch with the systeam so that they can then put the logs in w3c space 20:19:39 tantek: concurs 20:19:51 Activity Streams 1.0 OWFa Signed Agreements: https://github.com/activitystreams/json-activity/tree/master/agreements. 20:20:16 Who signed Activity Streams 2.0 OWFa FSA? - jasnell to provide URLs to signatures 20:20:27 q+ 20:20:35 ack jasnell 20:21:01 I can check with W3C to see if OWFa on 1.0 counts for AS 2.0 in terms of W3C process - I think the big difference is OWF is that it's *individual* patent commits rather than *company-wide* commits 20:21:39 could not hear what jasnell said 20:21:44 This is a question for wendy seltzer, but in general putting AS 2.0 into a Member Submission process to at least put IBM's patents behind AS 2.0 on a company wide base. 20:22:25 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/activity-streams 20:22:54 jasnell: as far as contributions for 2.0 are concerned they are out on the activity streams github repo, and a number of other repos that jasnell is going to provide in the wiki 20:23:43 tantek: could you summarise for the group a list of the majorindividuals 20:23:53 jasnell: it has been working mostly on an individual basis 20:23:57 q+ 20:24:22 We also have non-member licensing forms we can give folks that haven't joined. 20:24:42 tantek: it would be good to have the list of major orgs that contributed ( most of which have apparently joined the WG ). For the others there needs to be special agreements made. 20:25:51 ack harry 20:26:21 its a process, but we can do it 20:26:22 harry: agrees that the list of major commiters is needed, but also that something with wendy 20:26:28 we did it with OpenSocial Embedded Experiences already 20:26:37 q= 20:26:42 q+ 20:26:42 And if we do that process now then we'll move quicker :) 20:26:52 I'll send you guys link but I'm sure Arnaud is familiar with process 20:26:55 ack shepazu 20:27:18 That's why need to see if non-members contributed before we go down that route :) 20:27:37 Summary for AS 2.0: jasnell is primary author for 2.0, since it's still a work in progress, there's been no OWFa. Contribution has been via the public Activity Streams 2.0 mailing list. The document history is available via public github repo and IETF I-D document history. 20:27:57 I agree with Doug, not sure what a formal submission will give us 20:28:16 shepazu: it's not necessary to do a member sumbission. If you company is a member of the W3C then all your members once its published as a first Working Draft, it becomes a requirement for all W3C members to speak out if they have an IP problem 20:28:18 q+ 20:29:02 It should only be necessary if we got a non-member contribution, which the list should clarify 20:29:02 harry: this is a question of members IP submission 20:29:05 ack jasnell 20:29:36 q+ 20:29:44 ack shepazu 20:29:47 jasnell: there has never been an objection from any of the contributors over time, so it should be fine. 20:30:09 +1 to Doug's point! big overhead 20:30:18 +1 getting rid of bureaucracy 20:30:34 shepazu: it would be better not to do a member submission, because that is a long process ( 2 weeks ) and it is just easier if all the contributors are all w3c members 20:30:53 tantek: ok, so we need to find out if we have members that are non w3c contributors 20:31:43 +1 20:32:33 doug: its easier to have each contributor to say they are fine with this. ( not sure I understood correctly doug can write it up ) 20:32:45 Topic: new Invited Experts 20:33:52 tantek: aaronpk, walters, KevinMarks , Jako, Matt Lee, Shane Hudson, tommorris, Antonio Tagliadore, .... 20:34:04 if you can, sorry 20:34:05 (to do a member submission, it would require each contributor's lawyers to deal with each of the other to make the submission… just doing a FPWD implicit and explicit license grant is easy and each of the parties only has to sign a form) 20:34:11 sorry for munghing people's names 20:34:15 s/Tagliadore/Tapiador/ 20:34:26 thanks! 20:34:36 agenda+ use cases and requirements? 20:34:51 q+ 20:35:09 ack Arnaud 20:35:33 Topic: Open Questions Social Web Working Group charter 20:35:39 q 20:35:42 Arnaud, there is a problem with a link 20:35:44 q+ 20:35:49 ( which link Arnaud ? ) 20:36:09 Arnaud: what are the rules for subscriptions to the WG lists 20:36:23 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb-comments/ 20:36:50 harry: there are meant to be two groups and he is cc ing to both 20:37:04 http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html#communication 20:37:15 q+ 20:37:31 ... anyone can subscribe, but the only people who can post are members of the WG and invited experts, but anyone can post to the comments list public-social-comments@w3.org 20:38:20 ack shepazu 20:39:00 shepazu: for every other group I am in there is a public-xxx where public work is done, and comments can be sent. 20:39:03 q+ 20:39:33 shepazu: the technical group and the public comments should be dealt with together 20:40:42 shepazu: there should be only one list for read and write for the WG and the community 20:40:54 ... that's a proposal 20:41:02 Any legal reasons for read only access for non-members? 20:41:10 separate stuff, leave me for later 20:41:21 q? 20:41:22 yes, in general the reason was that WG write-only lists was for IPR 20:41:25 ack Arnaud 20:41:36 not sure how superimportant that is to members 20:41:56 earlier, we discussed this with chairs and we decided to separate the mailing lists 20:42:05 q+ 20:42:16 Concur with Arnaud that these should be kept seperate 20:42:16 Arnaud: agrees that there is an overhead, on the other hand it addresses a possible IP issue. WG members by joining sign a IP paper, are bound. The two groups helps to seperate between the two. 20:43:15 shepazu: Arnaud you're absolutely right. This is a judgement call. If you think that is likely that there are people who are trying to submarine IP into the specifications this is a reasonable concern. 20:44:06 Loqi has joined #social 20:44:50 shepazu: but the two mailing lists does not stop it from happening. since if there are two mailing lists you'd have to be very careful with the idea of where some idea came from. IF someone sues someone in the W3C they loose all rights to royalty free licence to all w3C technology 20:44:58 q+ 20:45:33 tantek: did the two lists ever help? 20:45:49 shepazu: in my experience not 20:45:53 Arnaud used to be part of W3C for a while... 20:46:40 Arnaud: for full disclosure he spent a lot of time with a bunch of lawyers, who tend to say the opposite 20:46:57 ... because they are very conservative 20:48:14 Arnaud: from experience on the ldp mailing list there is was no problem. people could comment on the different list. If one has one list it becomes a lot more confusing to know who is on the mailing list 20:48:30 who is in the group and who is out of it 20:48:51 q? 20:49:00 ack Arnaud 20:49:08 wasn't this the point of the OWFa in the first place? 20:49:12 ack harry 20:49:36 Arnaud: on the LDP group the group made sure to respond to all the mail 20:50:04 KevinMarks, we can always get people to sign off on a W3C spec, even if they aren't members or Invited Experts 20:50:11 harry: I have been on two groups, but it is easier to seperate the trolling and purposefull damaging people from the conversation. 20:50:20 same as with OWFa 20:50:27 OK 20:50:36 ... the IPR around social as there is a lot of IPR in this space. 20:50:55 s/the IPR/the problem/ 20:52:32 tantek: it is the chairs duty to apply the same levels of W3C quality of discourse on all mailing lists 20:53:26 2 20:53:27 2 20:53:31 strapoll: 1) one list, 2) two lists (wg & public) 20:53:31 2 20:53:32 tantek: straw poll. type 1. for only 1 list . 2 for two lists ( public-social-web, public-social-web-comments ) 20:53:36 2 (for legal reasons) 20:53:38 2 20:53:39 2 in this case 20:53:39 2 20:53:41 2 20:53:41 2 20:53:51 1 20:53:56 s/strapoll/strawpoll/ 20:54:17 2. mostly because it helps reduce conversations that go nowhere 20:54:28 (no preference. will defer to arnaud's opinion) 20:54:46 can I vote for 0 lists? 20:56:04 Arnaud: the charter says most of the discussion will take place on the mailing list 20:56:05 twitter is not federated 20:56:15 I think it's a mountain out of molehill 20:56:47 we are running up to end of hour - anything else? 20:56:54 Note TPAC website is now updated 20:57:01 We're close to the end of the hour 20:57:09 q? 20:57:11 ack barnabywalters 20:57:21 evanpro: so we stick with 2 as there is strong consensus on that 20:57:29 akuckartz: I have an idea to solve that but this margin is too small to contain it 20:57:45 barnabywalters: what is the difference between the social web working group and the social interest group 20:57:52 :-) 20:57:55 is that right barnabywalters ? 20:58:00 bblfish: yup 20:58:15 bblfish: s/evanpro/tantek 20:58:37 harry: the WG is about technical deliverables the other gorup is about use cases and vocabularies that can go on for a long time on after the WG 20:59:14 q+ 20:59:20 Ack doug 20:59:23 ack shepazu 20:59:34 ... the worry was that if we put everything in one pot then we won't have enough attention to get all done that needs to be done 20:59:51 evan did a bit of work, he could describe briefly? 21:00:00 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Use_cases 21:00:15 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Related 21:00:29 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Examples 21:00:34 tantek: thanks everyone. 21:00:43 -Mike_Elledge 21:00:44 And now in an amazing speech act tantek closes the call 21:00:44 -Doug_Schepers 21:00:47 -Arnaud 21:00:47 -Lloyd_Fassett 21:00:47 bye 21:00:48 Good one! 21:00:48 -MarkC 21:00:48 -jasnell 21:00:48 -akuckartz 21:00:50 -aaronpk 21:00:51 -oshepherd 21:00:53 -mattmarum 21:00:53 ah, note - I have vacation at end of August, but I am assuning folks can continue on 21:00:55 -??P10 21:00:56 -[Mozilla] 21:01:05 :-) 21:01:06 RRSAgent, generate minutes 21:01:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/08/05-social-minutes.html harry 21:01:09 -hhalpin 21:01:15 thank you bblfish for scribing! 21:01:21 shepazu: I am interested in some requirements but in this case very specific requirements for our social syntax 21:01:36 harry, could you make sure we have a recurring call setup with zakim before you go on vacation at end of August? 21:01:39 so what do I need to do to get Zakim to accept me next time 21:01:52 Zakim, help 21:01:52 Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help. 21:01:52 well, I think there's still some people who aren't happy with this time 21:01:53 For example, JSONish, XMLish, HTMLish, multi-system-ish? 21:01:54 Some of the commands I know are: 21:01:54 xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx 21:01:54 if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted 21:01:54 xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx 21:01:55 I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx 21:01:55 xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group 21:01:55 xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx 21:01:55 who's here? - lists the participants on the phone 21:01:56 who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted 21:01:56 mute xxx - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#) 21:01:56 unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61# 21:01:56 is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present 21:01:56 list conferences - reports the active conferences 21:01:57 this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx 21:01:57 excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel 21:01:57 I last learned something new on $Date: 2013-03-03 19:18:47 $ 21:02:03 (also I just got the reference) 21:02:17 evanpro, this is a general methodology, should apply to anything 21:02:18 we should create a wiki page to keep track of who has scribed 21:02:23 good idea 21:02:28 unless someone has done so already I will do so now 21:02:30 but quick question - I didn't book a reoccuring time 21:02:57 thank you Arnaud 21:02:58 because some folks are unhappy with the time 21:03:25 http://doodle.com/pwzi33rcnnagwzg764r32za7/ 21:03:31 what do you guys think? 21:03:36 I was hoping to discuss this on the call 21:03:39 If/when doodle polls go out, could it be clear which timezone is being referred to? 21:03:55 harry, could you document the status of the unhappiness with the time on the wiki? no time will be ideal, and if we're to consider another time we should see who's happy/unhappy accordingly 21:03:59 harry, just noting that you should indeed create public-social-comments 21:04:22 harry, re: hoping to discuss this on the call, could you add that to next week's agenda? https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-08-12 21:04:25 the timezone is part of the Doodle 21:04:32 harry, you may clone from this week's https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-08-05 21:04:46 -[IPcaller.a] 21:04:47 Team_(social)20:00Z has ended 21:04:47 Attendees were jasnell, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, tantek, Doug_Schepers, akuckartz, mattmarum, oshepherd, bblfish, MarkC, Mike_Elledge, +1.503.342.aaaa, aaronpk 21:04:55 and jtauber 21:04:57 RRSAgent, generate minutes 21:04:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/08/05-social-minutes.html harry 21:05:45 So is it next week or the week after at which formal meetings start? 21:06:11 good q oshepherd, and what's the difference? 21:06:18 That's a good question 21:06:22 We usually give a month 21:06:26 I believe last week was the first formalish meeting :) 21:06:31 for formal start, some members have requested that 21:06:39 we need for formal meetings to give a one week notice at least 21:06:42 I'd prefer to give more 21:06:54 and some members are still having lawyers go through charter 21:07:02 bbiahr - lurking til then 21:07:26 So I feel early to mid-Sept makes sense - let's decide on next meeting 21:07:31 timing and formal meeting on agenda 21:09:14 OK. I'll have proper communications equipment out of boxes by then :-) 21:09:48 SIP seemed to hold up well this week. Maybe because we had less people about? 21:10:15 wiki question: does anybody know how to make Socialwg the base? 21:10:31 Arnaud: the base? 21:10:51 yeah, so that when I say [Scribes] it goes to Socialwg/Scribes 21:11:28 Aah. I don't think MediaWiki has that feature (and if it did, how would you link to main-space articles?) 21:12:07 well, it sure does have this because the LDP space is set up that way 21:12:16 LDP is a separate wiki 21:12:19 you can always use an absolute link 21:12:28 really? 21:12:33 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ vs wiki.w3.org 21:12:40 http://w3.org/wiki even :-) 21:12:43 oh, indeed :) 21:24:26 bblfish has joined #social 21:33:13 rrsagent, make logs public 21:36:22 Arnaud: do you know how I get listed on the present attendees? 21:36:55 during the call we rely on Zakim to keep track of that 21:37:25 which is why it's important to tell Zakim who's who when it says something like "123.456.aaa joined" 21:37:34 right, but it rejected that command 21:37:53 ah 21:37:58 someone did try to associate me but it rejected it for some reason 21:38:46 I'm not sure how we can do that after the fact 21:39:07 hopefully it doesn't matter at his stage but I'd hate for it to count against good standing 21:39:19 ah, no worries 21:39:38 and hopefully Zakim accepts me next week :-) 21:40:06 1) in my experience WGs rarely/never keep close track of people's standing 21:40:46 2) it only becomes relevant in case of a dispute over an issue where a vote takes place and someone who's making opposition is actually not in good standing 21:41:03 yep 21:42:31 in practice I've never seen this becoming relevant 21:43:16 which is also why there is very little/no motivation to keep track of people's standing 21:47:35 nicolagreco has joined #social 21:55:39 bblfish has joined #social 21:58:56