05 Aug 2014

See also: IRC log


jasnell, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, tantek, Doug_Schepers, akuckartz, mattmarum, oshepherd, bblfish, MarkC, Mike_Elledge, +1.503.342.aaaa, aaronpk
bblisfh, bblfish


<tantek> bblfish could you take minutes today?

<bblfish> yes, fine. I hope the connection is good

<evanpro> harry, tantek: are we scheduled for a full hour or half hour?

<evanpro> Just reviewing the agenda, I'm not sure.

<tantek> evanpro good q, I believe 60 minutes. Harry?

<barnabywalters> I’ll be joining in this time, just attempting to test SIP

<oshepherd> Zakim: +??P0 is me

<tantek> oh neat that worked!

<jtauber> I think I just came up as +[IPcaller]

<harry> trackbot, start meeting

<Arnaud> oh wait

<Arnaud> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

<Arnaud> trackbot, this is SOCL

<trackbot> Sorry, Arnaud, I don't understand 'trackbot, this is SOCL'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

<jtauber> actually, I think I'm IPcaller

<bblfish> someone is making weird noise

<Arnaud> trackbot, status

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

<barnabywalters> I’m in! I can hear someone going “mwah mwah mwah”

<tantek> bblfish are you on the phone?

<bblfish> I am listening in with Harry

<jtauber> I'm on the phone; I think I was IPcall and wonder if hhalpin was actually IPcaller.a (not sure it matters)

<bblfish> ok

<harry> scribe: bblisfh

<bblfish> scribe: bblfish

<jtauber> do I need to be registered somehow for Zakim to be happy?

<barnabywalters> intermittently

<barnabywalters> is he speaking now?

<jasnell> not hearing anything at the moment

<aaronpk> having trouble dialing in. it hung up on me.

review past actions items

<evanpro> SO CLEAR, tantek

<barnabywalters> aaronpk: I’m having success using jitsi

<barnabywalters> my other sip client didn’t work

<harry> TPAC2014 WG f2f scheduling - harryh

yes, its clearer tantek

<harry> Background: We agreed on 2 days WG f2f last week

<harry> Question: which days in particular?

<harry> +1 Ed Krebs back

<harry> Question: when will http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/ be updated to list Social Web WG?

<harry> happy to address this when your ready Tantek

Topics are https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-08-05

TPAC2014 WG f2f scheduling

Harry: Santa Clara TPAC is open
... but can't move the days
... you just have to go to ...

<harry> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2014/

<Arnaud> people can also request to participate as observers

<harry> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2014/

<harry> I think I may just update static update myself

<Arnaud> chairs will accommodate room permitting

<tantek> http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/ needs updating

harry: can update the tpac info

<Arnaud> just type +q

<shepazu> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/

<harry> so I can do

<harry> and to get off

<harry> can you ping me his details?

shepazu: suggesting an irc logger?

here: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/

<shepazu> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/

aaronpk: also has a suggestion he is going to post in the channel

<aaronpk> http://indiewebcamp.com/irc/today

<harry> I prefer aaronpk's bot off top of my head

<evanpro> Won't RRSAgent work?

tantek: any objections to aaronpk doing a 24h log of the archives?

<evanpro> Thanks!

<tantek> harry - you're breaking up

<barnabywalters> +1 for Loqi logging permanently. Excellent logs

<aaronpk> can't hear harry anymore

Arnaud: harry are you sure systeam cant do the loggin

<tantek> harry please repeat

<tantek> last 2-3 sentence

<tantek> s

<harry> Actually, I sent a syqreq request

<harry> And I'll put aaron in touch with systeams to see if we can logs in W3C space

<harry> but lets have aaron log things *right now* in indiewebcamp.com space

<aaronpk> you mean publish the logs later on a w3c url? sounds good.

<harry> we are already having some intersting conversations

<harry> yep

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

tantek: concurs

<jasnell> Activity Streams 1.0 OWFa Signed Agreements: https://github.com/activitystreams/json-activity/tree/master/agreements.

<harry> Who signed Activity Streams 2.0 OWFa FSA? - jasnell to provide URLs to signatures

<harry> 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

could not hear what jasnell said

<harry> 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.

<oshepherd> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/activity-streams

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

tantek: could you summarise for the group a list of the majorindividuals

jasnell: it has been working mostly on an individual basis

<harry> We also have non-member licensing forms we can give folks that haven't joined.

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.

<harry> its a process, but we can do it

harry: agrees that the list of major commiters is needed, but also that something with wendy

<harry> we did it with OpenSocial Embedded Experiences already

<harry> And if we do that process now then we'll move quicker :)

<harry> I'll send you guys link but I'm sure Arnaud is familiar with process

<harry> That's why need to see if non-members contributed before we go down that route :)

<jasnell> 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.

<Arnaud> I agree with Doug, not sure what a formal submission will give us

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

<harry> It should only be necessary if we got a non-member contribution, which the list should clarify

harry: this is a question of members IP submission

jasnell: there has never been an objection from any of the contributors over time, so it should be fine.

<Arnaud> +1 to Doug's point! big overhead

<harry> +1 getting rid of bureaucracy

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

tantek: ok, so we need to find out if we have members that are non w3c contributors

<Arnaud> +1

doug: its easier to have each contributor to say they are fine with this. ( not sure I understood correctly doug can write it up )

new Invited Experts

tantek: aaronpk, walters, KevinMarks , Jako, Matt Lee, Shane Hudson, tommorris, Antonio Tapiador, ....

<KevinMarks> if you can, sorry

<shepazu> (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)

sorry for munghing people's names

<akuckartz> thanks!

Open Questions Social Web Working Group charter

<shepazu> q

Arnaud, there is a problem with a link

( which link Arnaud ? )

Arnaud: what are the rules for subscriptions to the WG lists

<Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb-comments/

harry: there are meant to be two groups and he is cc ing to both

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

harry: 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

shepazu: for every other group I am in there is a public-xxx where public work is done, and comments can be sent.
... the technical group and the public comments should be dealt with together
... there should be only one list for read and write for the WG and the community
... that's a proposal

<akuckartz> Any legal reasons for read only access for non-members?

<barnabywalters> separate stuff, leave me for later

<harry> yes, in general the reason was that WG write-only lists was for IPR

<harry> not sure how superimportant that is to members

<harry> earlier, we discussed this with chairs and we decided to separate the mailing lists

<MarkC> Concur with Arnaud that these should be kept seperate

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.

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.
... 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

tantek: did the two lists ever help?

shepazu: in my experience not

<harry> Arnaud used to be part of W3C for a while...

Arnaud: for full disclosure he spent a lot of time with a bunch of lawyers, who tend to say the opposite
... because they are very conservative
... 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

who is in the group and who is out of it

<KevinMarks> wasn't this the point of the OWFa in the first place?

Arnaud: on the LDP group the group made sure to respond to all the mail

<shepazu> KevinMarks, we can always get people to sign off on a W3C spec, even if they aren't members or Invited Experts

harry: I have been on two groups, but it is easier to seperate the trolling and purposefull damaging people from the conversation.

<shepazu> same as with OWFa

<KevinMarks> OK

harry: the problem around social as there is a lot of IPR in this space.

tantek: it is the chairs duty to apply the same levels of W3C quality of discourse on all mailing lists

<MattMarum> 2

<MarkC> 2

<Arnaud> strawpoll: 1) one list, 2) two lists (wg & public)

<harry> 2

tantek: straw poll. type 1. for only 1 list . 2 for two lists ( public-social-web, public-social-web-comments )

<akuckartz> 2 (for legal reasons)

<Arnaud> 2

<oshepherd> 2 in this case

<MattMarum> 2

<evanpro> 2

<jtauber> 2

<shepazu> 1

2. mostly because it helps reduce conversations that go nowhere

<jasnell> (no preference. will defer to arnaud's opinion)

<KevinMarks> can I vote for 0 lists?

Arnaud: the charter says most of the discussion will take place on the mailing list

<akuckartz> twitter is not federated

<harry> I think it's a mountain out of molehill

<harry> we are running up to end of hour - anything else?

<harry> Note TPAC website is now updated

<evanpro> We're close to the end of the hour

evanpro: so we stick with 2 as there is strong consensus on that

<KevinMarks> akuckartz: I have an idea to solve that but this margin is too small to contain it

barnabywalters: what is the difference between the social web working group and the social interest group

<akuckartz> :-)

is that right barnabywalters ?

<barnabywalters> bblfish: yup

<tantek> bblfish: s/evanpro/tantek

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
... 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

<harry> evan did a bit of work, he could describe briefly?

<jasnell> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Use_cases

<jasnell> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Related

<jasnell> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Examples

tantek: thanks everyone.

And now in an amazing speech act tantek closes the call

<barnabywalters> bye

<evanpro> Good one!

<harry> ah, note - I have vacation at end of August, but I am assuning folks can continue on


<tantek> thank you bblfish for scribing!

<evanpro> shepazu: I am interested in some requirements but in this case very specific requirements for our social syntax

<tantek> harry, could you make sure we have a recurring call setup with zakim before you go on vacation at end of August?

<jtauber> so what do I need to do to get Zakim to accept me next time

<harry> well, I think there's still some people who aren't happy with this time

<evanpro> For example, JSONish, XMLish, HTMLish, multi-system-ish?

<jtauber> (also I just got the reference)

<shepazu> evanpro, this is a general methodology, should apply to anything

<Arnaud> we should create a wiki page to keep track of who has scribed

<harry> good idea

<Arnaud> unless someone has done so already I will do so now

<harry> but quick question - I didn't book a reoccuring time

<tantek> thank you Arnaud

<harry> because some folks are unhappy with the time

<harry> http://doodle.com/pwzi33rcnnagwzg764r32za7/

<harry> what do you guys think?

<harry> I was hoping to discuss this on the call

<rhiaro> If/when doodle polls go out, could it be clear which timezone is being referred to?

<tantek> 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

<shepazu> harry, just noting that you should indeed create public-social-comments

<tantek> 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

<harry> the timezone is part of the Doodle

<tantek> harry, you may clone from this week's https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-08-05

<jtauber> and jtauber

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-08-05 21:05:02 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Tagliadore/Tapiador/
Succeeded: s/the IPR/the problem/
Succeeded: s/strapoll/strawpoll/
Found Scribe: bblisfh
Found Scribe: bblfish
Inferring ScribeNick: bblfish
Scribes: bblisfh, bblfish
Default Present: jasnell, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, tantek, Doug_Schepers, akuckartz, mattmarum, oshepherd, bblfish, MarkC, Mike_Elledge, +1.503.342.aaaa, aaronpk
Present: jasnell Arnaud Lloyd_Fassett tantek Doug_Schepers akuckartz mattmarum oshepherd bblfish MarkC Mike_Elledge +1.503.342.aaaa aaronpk

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

Got date from IRC log name: 05 Aug 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/08/05-social-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]