IRC log of social on 2015-02-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:01:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
18:01:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:01:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
18:01:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
18:01:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
18:01:53 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start now
18:01:54 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
18:01:54 [trackbot]
Date: 03 February 2015
18:02:21 [tantek]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
18:02:21 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, tantek
18:02:22 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, elf-pavlik, almereyda, jaakko, Loqi, tantek, eprodrom, hhalpin, AnnB, harry, jasnell, bblfish, danbri, wilkie, bigbluehat, jaywink, shepazu, Arnaud,
18:02:22 [Zakim]
... JakeHart, dwhly, mattl, rhiaro_, oshepherd_, rektide, nickstenn, KevinMarks, ShaneHudson, pdurbin, ben_thatmust, bret, Tsyesika, ben_thatmustbeme, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot,
18:02:22 [Zakim]
... sandro, wseltzer
18:02:26 [almereyda_]
almereyda_ has joined #social
18:02:34 [Arnaud]
zakim, this is socl
18:02:34 [Zakim]
ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
18:02:46 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
18:02:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ann, Arnaud, [Mozilla]
18:02:49 [Zakim]
18:02:56 [tantek]
Zakim, Mozilla has me
18:02:56 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
18:03:02 [tantek]
chair: tantek
18:03:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.541.410.aaaa
18:03:12 [Zakim]
18:03:37 [AdamB]
AdamB has joined #social
18:04:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.314.777.aabb
18:04:24 [Zakim]
18:04:26 [AdamB]
zakim, aabb is me
18:04:26 [Zakim]
+AdamB; got it
18:04:30 [Zakim]
18:04:35 [Zakim]
18:04:36 [bret]
Zakim, ??P5 is me
18:04:36 [Zakim]
+bret; got it
18:04:40 [Zakim]
18:04:43 [bret]
Zakim, mute me
18:04:43 [Zakim]
bret should now be muted
18:04:45 [tantek]
zakim, who is here?
18:04:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ann, Arnaud, [Mozilla], aaronpk, +1.541.410.aaaa, jasnell, AdamB, bret (muted), elf-pavlik (muted), rhiaro_, eprodrom
18:04:47 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has tantek
18:04:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see AdamB, almereyda_, Zakim, RRSAgent, elf-pavlik, jaakko, Loqi, tantek, eprodrom, hhalpin, AnnB, harry, jasnell, bblfish, danbri, wilkie, bigbluehat, jaywink, shepazu,
18:04:47 [Zakim]
... Arnaud, JakeHart, dwhly, mattl, rhiaro_, oshepherd_, rektide, nickstenn, KevinMarks, ShaneHudson, pdurbin, ben_thatmust, bret, Tsyesika, ben_thatmustbeme, kylewm, aaronpk,
18:04:47 [Zakim]
... trackbot, sandro, wseltzer
18:05:18 [Zakim]
+ +
18:05:28 [melvster]
melvster has joined #social
18:05:32 [bblfish]
zakim, aacc is me
18:05:32 [Zakim]
+bblfish; got it
18:05:34 [tantek]
Zakim, aaaa is Lloyd_Fassett
18:05:36 [Zakim]
18:05:36 [Zakim]
+Lloyd_Fassett; got it
18:05:48 [tantek]
scribenick: aaronpk
18:06:15 [bill-looby]
bill-looby has joined #social
18:06:15 [hhalpin]
Zakim, what's the code?
18:06:15 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, hhalpin
18:06:20 [dromasca]
dromasca has joined #social
18:06:27 [aaronpk]
chair: tantek
18:06:36 [aaronpk]
18:06:44 [aaronpk]
tantek: first order of business is to approve last weeks minutes
18:06:50 [Zakim]
18:07:01 [tantek]
18:07:03 [bill-looby]
zakim ipcaller is me
18:07:04 [eprodrom]
tantek I believe I have an open action to add the IBM Connections discussion to the agenda
18:07:30 [aaronpk]
okay then up to evan toa dd the items to the agenda before the end
18:07:35 [AdamB]
looked very lively :)
18:07:37 [aaronpk]
any opinions on last weeks' minutes?
18:07:48 [aaronpk]
...shall we approve them?
18:07:51 [eprodrom]
18:07:53 [aaronpk]
...not hearing any objections
18:08:06 [aaronpk]
...based on no objections and one +1, declare the minutes approved
18:08:11 [aaronpk] item
18:08:23 [aaronpk]
TOPIC: open issues
18:08:24 [Zakim]
18:08:29 [tantek]
18:08:48 [aaronpk]
tantek: first issue, should we drop verbs and only use object types
18:08:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.857.445.aadd
18:08:52 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: ACTION-26 Review microformats due jan 14, 2015
18:08:59 [harry]
Zakim, aadd is hhalpin
18:08:59 [Zakim]
+hhalpin; got it
18:09:00 [aaronpk]
18:09:04 [harry]
Zakim, mute hhalpin
18:09:05 [Zakim]
hhalpin should now be muted
18:09:28 [aaronpk]
...any suggestions for how we resolve this since it's not assigned to anyone
18:09:35 [jasnell]
18:10:00 [jasnell]
this has already been done in the current working draft
18:10:01 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: we can give someone an action to come up with a proposal to address an issue
18:10:09 [tantek]
ack elf-pavlik
18:10:09 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss ACTION-26 Review microformats due jan 14, 2015
18:10:45 [elf-pavlik]
i'll type
18:10:47 [bret]
(sound is breaking up... sounds like a mic level issue)
18:10:51 [bblfish]
can't hear Elf either
18:11:00 [eprodrom]
18:11:01 [tantek]
18:11:05 [tantek]
ack jasnell
18:11:06 [aaronpk]
tantek: if this is about the open issue type in IRC, otherwise will ack james
18:11:17 [Zakim]
18:11:28 [Tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P16 is me
18:11:28 [Zakim]
+Tsyesika; got it
18:11:31 [aaronpk]
jasnell: re: verbs, the current draft already dropped verb
18:11:32 [eprodrom]
18:11:33 [Tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
18:11:34 [Zakim]
Tsyesika should now be muted
18:11:38 [Loqi]
Tsyesika: elf-pavlik left you a message 3 weeks, 6 days ago: sorry for ping just checking Loqi ...
18:11:40 [aaronpk]
...the verb property from the original AS has already been deprecated
18:11:46 [eprodrom]
+1 resolved
18:11:49 [elf-pavlik]
+1 resolved
18:11:59 [eprodrom]
I just closed it
18:12:32 [tantek]
18:12:41 [tantek]
18:12:42 [aaronpk]
tantek: next issue explicit or implicit typing
18:13:05 [aaronpk]
jasnell: the current approach is to depend on explicit types. the implicit approach was talked about at the F2F but not followed up on
18:13:18 [aaronpk]
...i'm sure an implementation could choose to do implicit if it wanted, but right now the approach is explicit
18:13:26 [aaronpk]
tantek: is there anyone here who would like to propose implicit typing?
18:13:39 [bblfish]
I suppose implicit typing would require rdf:domain and rdf:range
18:13:40 [aaronpk]
...specifically how to do it
18:13:45 [eprodrom]
Not me and I believe the current typing is good
18:13:59 [aaronpk]
???: I don't have an opinion on this, but if you wanted to, you'd specify the domain and range
18:14:05 [tantek]
18:14:09 [aaronpk]
...and then an rdf inferencing engine would be able to infer it
18:14:22 [aaronpk]
...but we don't want to make people rely on this in the beginning, better to make it explicit
18:14:26 [hhalpin]
yep, its highly unlikely anyone will use RDF(S) inferencing.
18:14:29 [elf-pavlik]
tantek, i think you came up with it so maybe you could take action to research it further?
18:14:47 [aaronpk]
tantek: are you proposing a way to do it, or are you saying here are some thoughts
18:15:02 [aaronpk]
bblfish: i'm fine with explicit typing, if youwant implicit you have to do domain and range
18:15:32 [bblfish]
If I am wrong then it's because I have not understood the problem
18:15:44 [aaronpk]
tantek: I was one of the ones who brought this up at the F2F so I'l ltake the action to come up with a simple proposal for implicit typying
18:15:48 [aaronpk]
...based on property names
18:15:58 [eprodrom]
Create an action
18:16:12 [aaronpk]
ACTION: tantek to come up with a simple proposal for implicit typing based on property names
18:16:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-35 - Come up with a simple proposal for implicit typing based on property names [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-02-10].
18:16:46 [aaronpk]
tantek: next issue: need glossary for terms
18:17:00 [aaronpk]
tantek: ann did you raise this at the f2f?
18:17:15 [eprodrom]
18:17:19 [aaronpk]
tantek: we were using a lot of jargon at the f2f and we didn't all agree necessarily
18:17:29 [bblfish]
I wonder if this can be subsumed by use cases
18:17:39 [aaronpk]
AnnB: we do have lloyd, chair of the vocab task force in the IG
18:17:44 [aaronpk]
tantek: no this isn't for vocabulary, just in prose
18:17:57 [eprodrom]
18:17:59 [aaronpk]
AnnB: a glossary is similar to teh vocabulary no?
18:18:21 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: the problem was that we have a use case that speaks abotu federating profiles, uses "federate" as a verb without clearly saying what that means
18:18:32 [aaronpk]
...the idae was that we would grab some of the jargon terms and nail them down
18:18:45 [aaronpk]
...i'm happy with closing the issue, don't believe it's necessary. i'm happy to live with the ambiguity
18:19:03 [AdamB]
+1 on waiting until another problem
18:19:07 [aaronpk]
tantek: anyone else happy to live with the ambiguity until we run into a problem?
18:19:19 [Zakim]
18:19:20 [aaronpk]
AnnB: if we encounter a specific issue we can address then
18:19:23 [eprodrom]
18:19:33 [aaronpk]
tantek: proposeal to closing with no resolution
18:19:51 [the_frey]
the_frey has joined #social
18:20:01 [eprodrom]
I closed it
18:20:07 [Zakim]
18:20:10 [aaronpk]
lloyd: my perspective is federation through vocabulary is a circular argument
18:20:35 [aaronpk] me it was a discussion about having a central resource to do the federation or is the standard going to allow direct multi-point to multi point federation
18:20:43 [aaronpk]
tantek: that's not what the issue was about, just that we couldn't agree on what federation meant
18:20:45 [bblfish]
18:20:54 [eprodrom]
hhalpin: thanks
18:21:08 [aaronpk]
lloyd: agree with living with the ambiguity for now
18:21:21 [hhalpin]
IMHO this "federation" conversation will go on forever
18:21:25 [aaronpk]
bblfish: suggestion to drop "federation" and use "p2p"
18:21:26 [eprodrom]
tantek can we just say "any updates to actions and issues" and move on?
18:21:27 [hhalpin]
so let's take that to the IG mailing list
18:21:29 [tantek]
18:21:33 [tantek]
18:21:36 [bblfish]
18:21:38 [eprodrom]
18:22:00 [aaronpk]
tantek: sandro can I assign this to you?
18:22:02 [tantek]
ISSUE-6: Make sure we have teleconferencing equipment for next f2f
18:22:02 [trackbot]
Notes added to ISSUE-6 Make sure we have teleconferencing equipment for next f2f.
18:22:22 [aaronpk]
ACTION: sandro resolve issue 6
18:22:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-36 - Resolve issue 6 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2015-02-10].
18:22:45 [tantek]
18:22:47 [aaronpk]
tantek: next issue, 8
18:22:50 [tantek]
ISSUE-8: Test suite for activity streams 2.0
18:22:50 [trackbot]
Notes added to ISSUE-8 Test suite for activity streams 2.0.
18:23:30 [aaronpk]
18:23:30 [trackbot]
ISSUE-8 -- Test suite for activity streams 2.0 -- open
18:23:30 [trackbot]
18:23:31 [bill-looby]
Are we discussing Issue 7 ? or does pending review mean addressing outside this call ?
18:23:40 [aaronpk]
tantek: we don't currently have any concrete plans for a test suite
18:23:43 [bblfish]
18:23:50 [aaronpk]
...anyone want to volunteer to work on at least a plan for a test suite
18:23:54 [hhalpin]
18:23:59 [tantek]
18:24:00 [tantek]
18:24:04 [tantek]
ack bblfish
18:24:17 [aaronpk]
bblfish: recently looked at a case of an ontology written out, and these are difficult to test currently
18:24:33 [aaronpk] what we might want to do is ask the people from OWL or RDF working groups to find what tools they use to test ontologies
18:24:51 [aaronpk]
tantek: hold on we don't need a specific plan right now, are you willing to agree to take the action
18:25:17 [hhalpin]
Zakim, unmute hhalpin
18:25:17 [Zakim]
hhalpin should no longer be muted
18:25:25 [aaronpk]
bblfish: i'm just saying why don't we ask other people what tools we use
18:25:37 [bblfish]
I am saying why don't we ask people in the OWL / RDF land
18:25:40 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: having been in those WGs there's nothing useful
18:25:56 [tantek]
18:26:02 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: we can use the standard W3C javascript test tools
18:26:29 [aaronpk]
ACTION: hhalpin put forth the test suite plan using standard JS tools
18:26:30 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-37 - Put forth the test suite plan using standard js tools [on Harry Halpin - due 2015-02-10].
18:26:36 [aaronpk]
tantek: next issues 9 and 10
18:26:43 [aaronpk]
...skip those for now since that's what we're working on
18:26:53 [aaronpk]
...any actions that anyone wants to report progress on?
18:27:01 [tantek]
18:27:12 [jasnell]
18:27:12 [bill-looby]
18:27:15 [aaronpk]
...if nothing to report, we'll move on to the rest of the agenda
18:27:20 [eprodrom]
18:27:33 [tantek]
18:27:34 [harry]
ack hhalpin
18:27:36 [tantek]
ack hhalpin
18:27:44 [harry]
i'm off queue
18:27:48 [tantek]
ack jasnell
18:28:01 [eprodrom]
18:28:06 [aaronpk]
jasnell: the AS drafts were published on thursday
18:28:08 [Loqi]
I added a countdown for 2/5 12:00am (#5603)
18:28:13 [eprodrom]
aaronpk: yes
18:28:17 [tantek]
18:28:19 [tantek]
ack bill-looby
18:28:34 [aaronpk]
bill-looby: been looking at proposed API, but still don't have access to the wiki
18:28:36 [AnnB]
++ to jasnell
18:28:46 [tantek]
18:28:48 [bblfish]
18:28:59 [aaronpk]
tantek: okay next agenda item, move forward with work on the social api. evan's action so he can lead the discussion
18:29:13 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: thanks tantek. so last week we had an action item to approve a list of requirements
18:29:17 [aaronpk]
...which opened up a lot of conversations
18:29:27 [aaronpk]
...which is great in a lot of ways, but is also difficult cause we can go all over the place
18:29:35 [aaronpk]
...had a lot of discussion on the mailing list and on the telcon last week
18:29:53 [aaronpk] of the big items of feedback is the format of the requirements we have is probably not sufficient to develop a candicate proposal for
18:30:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.335.aaee
18:30:10 [aaronpk] discussion with teh other chairs, in order to move forward, we proposed a mechanism and schedule for pushing the process forward
18:30:14 [eprodrom]
18:30:21 [aaronpk]
...the idea is in three steps
18:30:31 [aaronpk]
...first step is take the list of requirements we have now,
18:30:41 [aaronpk]
...things like creating social connections, posting new content, repsonding to content
18:30:48 [aaronpk]
...using each fo the high level groupings to create a user story
18:30:59 [aaronpk]
...we have about 10 high level groupings, so we create a set of 10 user stories
18:31:05 [aaronpk]
...would have those ready to go for next week, Feb 10
18:31:23 [aaronpk]
...and then if we generate more user stories in that time that's great, btu can definitely commit to taking the requirements we have and turning them into user stories
18:31:24 [aaronpk]
18:31:31 [aaronpk]
...will be doing this on the wiki so people can review
18:31:53 [aaronpk]
...we'l talk about it next week Feb 10, and over the week of 10-17 working group participants will use +1 -1 +0 voting on the wiki page
18:31:59 [aaronpk] upvote/downvote user stories
18:32:14 [KevinMarks]
18:32:15 [aaronpk]
...on 17 feb we come out with a set of 0-10 user stories that we use to measure our candidate proposals
18:32:27 [aaronpk]
...there's nothing in this keeping us from developing candidate proposals
18:32:54 [aaronpk]
...from the point of view of the chairs and w3c team, if we have a good set of user stories we agree on, it will be much easier t oaccept the validitiy of proposals that come in
18:32:55 [KevinMarks]
if we have 0 user stories does that mean we have no specs to do?
18:33:00 [aaronpk]
...any questions abotu the procesS?
18:33:02 [eprodrom]
18:33:12 [AnnB]
18:33:20 [aaronpk]
tantek: would like to point out there is one user story to be used as at template for developing user stories
18:33:42 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: we have one user story previously approved, SWAT0, a good example of a concrete user story that is a good model for other user storie that come in
18:33:44 [AnnB]
18:33:59 [tantek]
ack AnnB
18:34:00 [eprodrom]
ack AnnB
18:34:01 [bblfish]
I'd say "very simple"
18:34:07 [eprodrom]
bblfish: thanks
18:34:16 [aaronpk]
AnnB: i feel like the IG failed the WG in that we were supposed to define a bunch of use cases but it didn't happen
18:34:30 [AdamB]
how does the swat0 use case differ from something like this:
18:34:30 [aaronpk]
...adam and I have spent some time int he last couple days, we have a ton of use cases described in a narrative format
18:34:36 [aaronpk]
...but we didn't get them into a common use case template
18:34:56 [aaronpk]
...after this meeting last week when there was discussion about havsing distinct step 1-2-3 use cases, tried to do that with one of them and adam tried to do a few more
18:35:22 [aaronpk] question is your call now for user stories, is that comparable to use cases?
18:35:29 [aaronpk]
...what more oculd we do here to be useful
18:35:45 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: i think the idea behind user stories is 3-5 sentence paragraph that talks about a process someone goes through satisfying a need
18:36:02 [aaronpk]
...there may be multiple functional points in that process, but we're talking abotu end users satisfying requirements using a particular tool
18:36:14 [aaronpk]
...also does anyone have an understanding of user stories that is far different fomr that?
18:36:23 [aaronpk]
tantek: there is a key implicit question of "why"
18:36:37 [aaronpk]'s good to document in steps, ann's example of social profile creation is a good step in that direction
18:36:53 [aaronpk]
...when evan and i developed swat0 years ago, there was a clear motivation of why behind the user story
18:37:03 [aaronpk]
...this is osmething people do today, they take pictures and post them and tag each other
18:37:09 [aaronpk] was based on existing behavior
18:37:15 [aaronpk]
...the why is an important aspect of any use case
18:37:33 [aaronpk]
...the example ann posted of social profile creation, people are creating profiles all the time, its' useful to ask why are they doing that
18:37:47 [aaronpk]
...there are no service where you just createa profile for its own sake, you're doing it for a reason
18:38:05 [aaronpk]
AnnB: i was thinking the narrative in these describes the why
18:38:14 [aaronpk] the case of profile, pretty much all other actions depend on the profile being createdin the first place
18:38:26 [aaronpk]
... were trying to boil it down into twitter-like succinct steps
18:38:36 [aaronpk]
...we have some exmaples out there, would be useful to get some feedback now
18:38:47 [aaronpk]
...would be interested to know how these are different from user stories
18:38:56 [tantek]
note that last week there was consensus about requiring "tweetable" summaries of use-cases / user-stories, so I summarized as such for SWAT0: and in tweet form:
18:38:56 [aaronpk]
tantek: since you bvrought up the point about having tweetable user stories
18:38:58 [Loqi]
@t :: SWAT0
18:38:59 [danbri]
danbri has joined #social
18:38:59 [Loqi]
A posts+tags mobile photo of B
18:39:00 [Loqi]
B photo notified
18:39:01 [Loqi]
C(follows A) sees it; replies
18:39:02 [Loqi]
A&B comment notified
18:39:03 [Loqi]
18:39:14 [aaronpk]
tantek: would like to put this forth as a proposal
18:39:35 [aaronpk]
PROPOSAL: any user stories that are posted have a tweetable basic summary of the steps
18:39:39 [KevinMarks]
can we use images to game the tweet limit?
18:39:56 [harry]
18:39:56 [aaronpk]
AnnB: might be too brief. in some cases we might get stuck tyring to make it too short
18:40:04 [sandro]
KevinMarks, you mean like a screenshot of twitter rejecting your really long tweet? :-)
18:40:10 [aaronpk]
tantek: the point is if it feels like it's not fittin,g it probably needs to be broken into multiple stories
18:40:34 [sandro]
18:40:47 [aaronpk]
AnnB: the IG has focused ont he profile use cases because pretty much everything derives from a profile
18:40:52 [tantek]
ack sandro
18:40:54 [aaronpk]
...but perhaps we should expand our horizons now
18:41:16 [aaronpk]
sandro: mostly want to ask evan about this, thought i heard him volunteering to rethink the requiremetns into a corresponding set of use cases
18:41:38 [aaronpk]
...while I love the precision of the profile use case and swat0, but even sketching out briefly to find out if that's what people want out of the WG
18:41:41 [AnnB]
seems to me there needs to be more than SWAT0
18:41:52 [aaronpk]
...once we have that we can delve more into fleshing them out
18:41:53 [AnnB]
but which?
18:41:58 [AnnB]
and how do they get approved?
18:42:10 [Lloyd_Fassett]
Lloyd_Fassett has joined #social
18:42:21 [tantek]
welcome Lloyd_Fassett
18:42:25 [tantek]
(on IRC)
18:42:26 [aaronpk]
AnnB: i'm now chairing the IG, trying to focus that energy into whatever is useful in the WG
18:42:32 [aaronpk]
...that's our mission is to be supportive of teh WG
18:42:46 [Zakim]
18:42:48 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: we could probably talk about the purpose of the IG
18:43:09 [aaronpk]
...i would love to take the requirement list and convert them into user stories, waill try to keep them short
18:43:16 [aaronpk]
...may be an interesting exercise to make them tweetable
18:43:21 [bblfish]
Frankly Tweets are a bit overrated
18:43:25 [aaronpk]
...the help of the IG over the next week would be to review those
18:43:26 [KevinMarks]
use emoji instead of A,B,C :
18:43:28 [Loqi]
@kevinmarks :: "@t: SWAT0
18:43:29 [Loqi]
👱posts+tags mobile photo of 👲
18:43:29 [aaronpk]
...this is really about getting the social API out
18:43:30 [Loqi]
👲photo notified
18:43:31 [Loqi]
👳(follows 👱) sees it; replies
18:43:32 [Loqi]
👱&👲comment notified
18:43:33 [Loqi]
18:43:38 [Lloyd_Fassett]
thanks tantek!
18:43:55 [aaronpk]
...there's a federation case in the profile use case, but I don't think federation is applicable to social API so not somtehing we'll deal with this time around
18:43:55 [tantek]
bblfish: the "tweet" constraint is a deliberate forcing function for simplification, and reducing "essays" which tend to otherwise occur
18:44:06 [aaronpk]
...effort is to get the drafts up ASAP and have the IG review them
18:44:12 [AnnB]
good feedback, eprodrom; thanks
18:44:16 [tantek]
make that bblfish, the "tweet" constraint is a deliberate forcing function for simplification, and reducing "essays" which tend to otherwise occur
18:44:16 [aaronpk]
...I might even be able to have them ready for tomororw's IG call
18:44:58 [aaronpk]
ACTION eprodrom: convert social API requirements to 2-10 user stories of 3-5 sentences each
18:44:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-38 - Convert social api requirements to 2-10 user stories of 3-5 sentences each [on Evan Prodromou - due 2015-02-10].
18:45:19 [jaakko_]
jaakko_ has joined #social
18:45:33 [aaronpk]
tantek: beyond that the general proposal for user stories to drive requirements by tuesday, then to evaluate the user stories and vote by the 17th
18:45:53 [bblfish]
q+ will there be enough time for people to add their own stories, in case they find some missing?
18:45:58 [bblfish]
will there be enough time for people to add their own stories, in case they find some missing?
18:46:01 [aaronpk]
...that voting should include: +1 you would use that yourself, but also +1 you would implement that in a client or +1 you would implement that on a server
18:46:26 [sandro]
+1 voting should be about whether you'll implement on server, implement on client, buy products using it, ... etc, or somehow see it as harmful or problematic.
18:46:27 [bblfish]
18:46:29 [aaronpk] have a week to propose a user story, then you have a week to vote on whether you would *use* and *implement* those stories
18:46:35 [tantek]
18:46:36 [aaronpk]
...or if you have already implmeemntned it
18:46:52 [AnnB]
note that some of us (e.g., me) don't implement things
18:47:01 [tantek]
ack bblfish
18:47:17 [sandro]
AnnB, you can speak to the products that Boeing wants
18:47:38 [harry]
18:47:55 [aaronpk]
tantek: anyone is welcome to take any of the work done in the IG and put it forth for the WG to consider
18:47:58 [eprodrom]
18:48:11 [harry]
Zakim, unmute hhalpin
18:48:11 [Zakim]
hhalpin was not muted, harry
18:48:12 [aaronpk]
...this is a general call for anyone in this WG to take any user story (they don't need to write it themselves) and prppose it
18:48:13 [tantek]
ack harry
18:48:13 [harry]
Zakim, unmute harry
18:48:14 [Zakim]
sorry, harry, I do not know which phone connection belongs to harry
18:48:29 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: quick note, effectively we're doing this process because we had such disagreement over the requirements
18:48:33 [aaronpk]
...this seems like the best way forward
18:48:38 [aaronpk]
...we don't have to accept all the user storeies
18:48:47 [aaronpk]
...what we didn't want is open-ended user stories
18:49:03 [aaronpk]
...what we wanted is user stories that we use to psuh out the API draft and know the benchmarks of it
18:49:05 [sandro]
18:49:09 [aaronpk] least a rough consensus
18:49:11 [AnnB]
right, sandro .. my point is I don't want something ranked lower because I don't vote that I will implement it
18:49:20 [jaakko]
my team would like to be building a prototype in the upcoming weeks but we're still uncertain about the technology choices. we have the user story and source data to be consumed and published in a activity stream. what would be the best way to go about building a proto?
18:49:26 [aaronpk]
...we did rat-hole really badly last week, we had users bringing up implementation level details abotu how they wanted the plumbing to work
18:49:30 [aaronpk]
...we dont' want to do that in the user stories
18:49:41 [aaronpk]
...they have to be implementation independent at this point
18:50:04 [aaronpk]
...let's try to stay on focus on the mailing list, and if people want to have more technical discussions about plumbing, that's off topic for the WG and you can do that in the IG
18:50:10 [tantek]
18:50:13 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:50:21 [eprodrom]
18:50:31 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: henry it soundsl ike you're pretty eager to do user stories, you can drop them in on this blank page
18:50:44 [harry]
Again, we had to do this because we didn't have agreement on requirement list
18:50:45 [aaronpk] was my intention to get candidate stories up ASAP, if you have something you'd like to throw in there you can do it
18:50:58 [aaronpk]
...I did not mean t osuggest it was not ok to add user stories
18:51:00 [sandro]
18:51:02 [harry]
So rough consensus on a small set of user-stories seems reasonable to push through
18:51:11 [aaronpk]
tantek: okay does that help clarify the proposal?
18:51:19 [aaronpk]
...does everyone understand this week vs next week?
18:51:22 [harry]
Yes, chairs have regular meetings, that's normal AnnB
18:51:28 [eprodrom]
Text I had was " PROPOSED by 10 Feb user stories on wiki to be voted on between 10-17 Feb with approval on 17 Feb"
18:51:33 [bblfish]
that's fine, just trying to get the understanding of the timetable clear.
18:51:44 [bblfish]
When can we expect the first stories to be down?
18:51:45 [harry]
particularly when Working Group needs to focus on getting chartered deliverables though.
18:51:45 [rhiaro]
18:51:46 [eprodrom]
18:51:49 [harry]
18:51:50 [aaronpk]
18:51:51 [dromasca]
18:51:54 [jasnell]
18:52:04 [KevinMarks]
18:52:06 [eprodrom]
bblfish I can't commit to having them ready before 10 Feb
18:52:06 [AnnB]
+1 (I think)
18:52:07 [sandro]
+1 with "votes" being feedback about user stories, and who cares about them, more than up-vs-down
18:52:15 [eprodrom]
But I will try to work on them in the next 48 hours
18:52:28 [AdamB]
18:52:31 [bblfish]
+1 though we need to have some template stories up a.s.a.p so that we know how people want to write up u.stories
18:52:42 [tantek]
+1 for "I would use this user story personally", +1 would implement this story on the client, +1 for would implement on the server
18:52:44 [AnnB]
oh .. that's not what I thought this vote was about
18:53:10 [aaronpk]
???: we'l see a few user stories come out as most exciting
18:53:20 [tantek]
18:53:21 [aaronpk]
tantek: important to capture implementer interest as well
18:53:22 [eprodrom]
AnnB: they're describing what the "voting" on the wiki will mean
18:53:34 [eprodrom]
It's kind of recursive, sorry
18:53:44 [aaronpk]
tantek: not seeing any objections to the schedule
18:53:49 [AnnB]
I thought this particular vote was about the schedule for next 2 weeks
18:53:53 [bblfish]
18:53:56 [eprodrom]
AnnB: yes, correct
18:54:07 [bblfish]
18:54:10 [tantek]
18:54:14 [aaronpk]
RESOLVED: accept evan's proposal for the next two weeks. week 1 is to propose user stories on the wiki, week 2 is to vote on them
18:54:32 [aaronpk]
bblfish: evan just wrote that he won't have anything up by the 10th
18:54:42 [aaronpk]
tantek: you have until the 10th to add to the wiki page
18:54:53 [aaronpk]
tantek: from the 10th to the 17th you have the opportunity to vote
18:55:11 [hhalpin]
18:55:13 [KevinMarks]
which is it?
18:55:16 [aaronpk]
bblfish: is there going to be some discussion about.... it seems like you're trying to push things through at full speed
18:55:28 [aaronpk]
tantek: what's been happening for months is we've been reviewing existing APIs
18:55:36 [aaronpk]
...that research has been used to inform the draft list of requiements
18:55:42 [aaronpk]
...which was met with lots of discussion and dissent last week
18:55:55 [Zakim]
18:56:00 [aaronpk]
...evan's proposed way of moving past that is to ground the requirements in user stories we can use to drive the requirements
18:56:01 [eprodrom]
18:56:12 [jaensen]
jaensen has joined #social
18:56:13 [tantek]
18:56:35 [Zakim]
18:56:41 [aaronpk]
bblfish: worried that people will be writing user stories in the wrong format, and a week isn't enough time
18:56:52 [aaronpk]
...have to be clear on the type of the story, feeling this is a bit pressed
18:57:09 [aaronpk]
tantek: this question has been answered, we have one great story, if you have any question about the format, use that
18:57:12 [AdamB]
swat0 uses a numbered list for "user story"
18:57:13 [sandro]
18:57:15 [aaronpk]
...any questions bring it up on the mailing list
18:57:27 [aaronpk]
bblfish: i dont' think you're givingp eople a lot of time to iterate here
18:57:33 [aaronpk]
tantek: there has been a lot of iteration in the IG
18:57:48 [aaronpk]
...we just didn't provide any structured way to bring the stories forward, so this is the structure
18:57:51 [AnnB]
BUT, my point is, the IG has tried to put use cases forward in the same format as SWAT0 .. what next?
18:57:55 [jasnell]
Propose one additional week
18:58:01 [jasnell]
two week review
18:58:03 [KevinMarks]
we have a call netx week to review, and another week, and we can still iterate
18:58:04 [tantek]
18:58:06 [tantek]
ack bblfish
18:58:07 [Zakim]
18:58:08 [tantek]
ack harry
18:58:11 [tantek]
ack hhalpin
18:58:28 [eprodrom]
Sorry, I dropped off
18:58:28 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: want to reinforce. "hi I want this whole thing to use RDF" is not a user story
18:58:33 [aaronpk]
... and B we cannot go out of scope
18:58:39 [Zakim]
18:58:42 [tantek]
18:58:44 [aaronpk]
...things like identity systems are out of scope
18:58:58 [Zakim]
+ +358.503.28aaff
18:59:02 [aaronpk]
...we cannot and should not deal with out of scope things here
18:59:19 [aaronpk] the mailing list we had a lot of rat-holing, which is on topic on a different list
18:59:19 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:59:47 [hhalpin]
AnnB, that obviously didn't work though, which is why we are trying to reduce the amount of text required.
18:59:52 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: we are trying to rush, i tehink ideally speaking for the chairs, we would love to have proposals on the table and be able to select a proposal at our F2F
19:00:02 [aaronpk]
...feeling like we can move forward with the social API at the f2f
19:00:08 [AnnB]
did you look, hhalpin, at the ones we just wrote?
19:00:11 [Arnaud]
bblfish: while I can understand you think we are pushing that's what chairs have to do, everyone will have the opportunity to comment, ask questions, etc. so I don't think you need to worry
19:00:15 [aaronpk]
...if we take this extra time that you are asking for that you put it t ogood use
19:00:31 [aaronpk]
...i'm willing to put in some extra time to get these early user storeies as fast as possible
19:00:40 [hhalpin]
Not the new ones, and I'd just add them immediately to the wiki if possible, as that won't take too much time.
19:00:40 [aaronpk]
...i don't think it will take too much editorial work
19:00:42 [tantek]
19:00:47 [Zakim]
19:00:50 [Zakim]
- +358.503.28aaff
19:00:51 [aaronpk]
...i would like if you're putting this extra burden on me that you make good use of it
19:00:52 [KevinMarks]
instead of extra time now, propose an extension next week if needed then
19:00:56 [AnnB]
they are there, Harry
19:01:08 [aaronpk]
bblfish: if you can get as many of them done in 2 days time, then other people can look at them and discuss and add to them
19:01:14 [KevinMarks]
we can always iterate furthre
19:01:16 [aaronpk]
...because you already have a good idea of the use caseas you want
19:01:21 [aaronpk]
...just so we have a better idea of what you're looking for
19:01:27 [AdamB]
i've taken a shot at adding one
19:01:43 [aaronpk]
...will be much easier if we have 4-5 days after seeing yours to add to them
19:01:46 [AnnB]
19:01:48 [sandro]
19:01:53 [tantek]
ack sandr
19:01:56 [aaronpk]
tantek: sounds like we have a consensus
19:01:57 [tantek]
ack sandro
19:02:04 [tantek]
schedule resolution stands
19:02:08 [AnnB]
just before the meeting, I moved the one about Federated Groups to another page; didn't have to do with profiles
19:02:13 [aaronpk]
sandro: the important thing is that we have solid consensus ont he user stories
19:02:23 [aaronpk]
...hopefully everyone agrees in 2 weeks
19:02:33 [aaronpk]
...but if in 2 weeks some people ahven't read them
19:02:46 [aaronpk]
...we should try our best to actually get feedback from the overwhelming majority of members
19:03:03 [Zakim]
19:03:04 [Zakim]
19:03:04 [Zakim]
19:03:05 [Zakim]
19:03:07 [Zakim]
19:03:12 [Zakim]
19:03:14 [Zakim]
19:03:22 [Zakim]
19:03:23 [Zakim]
19:03:29 [eprodrom]
OK, dropped off
19:03:29 [aaronpk]
tantek: thanks everyone
19:03:30 [Zakim]
19:03:32 [Zakim]
19:03:32 [Zakim]
19:03:32 [aaronpk]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:03:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate aaronpk
19:03:37 [Zakim]
19:03:39 [Zakim]
19:03:42 [Zakim]
19:03:49 [AnnB]
thanks for chairing, Tantek!
19:03:55 [Zakim]
- +1.408.335.aaee
19:03:57 [AnnB]
and scribing Aaron!
19:04:02 [tantek]
thanks for scribing aaronpk!
19:04:05 [Zakim]
19:04:06 [tantek]
19:04:08 [Loqi]
aaronpk has 682 karma
19:04:18 [eprodrom]
I'm really sorry, it seems like we just lost an opportunity to talk about IBM Connections
19:04:21 [aaronpk]
19:04:37 [eprodrom]
Can we talk to the invited person to present next week?
19:05:06 [aaronpk]
oops forgot to do the "who's present" thing
19:05:21 [tantek]
zakim, who is here?
19:05:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see elf-pavlik
19:05:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jaensen, danbri, the_frey, melvster, AdamB, Zakim, RRSAgent, jaakko, Loqi, tantek, eprodrom, hhalpin, AnnB, harry, jasnell, bblfish, wilkie, bigbluehat, jaywink,
19:05:23 [Zakim]
... shepazu, Arnaud, JakeHart, dwhly, mattl, rhiaro, oshepherd_, rektide, nickstenn, KevinMarks, ShaneHudson, pdurbin, ben_thatmust, bret, Tsyesika, ben_thatmustbeme, kylewm,
19:05:23 [Zakim]
... aaronpk, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer
19:05:26 [tantek]
zakim, who was here?
19:05:58 [aaronpk]
Zakim, who was here?
19:05:58 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, aaronpk.
19:06:04 [aaronpk]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:06:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate aaronpk
19:06:35 [aaronpk]
didn't seem to take
19:07:38 [wilkie]
and then give to:
19:07:50 [aaronpk]
yup got it
19:07:52 [aaronpk]
19:08:11 [AnnB]
but, wonder why RRSagent didn't do it
19:09:19 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
19:17:46 [tantek]
welcome timbl!
19:17:51 [tantek]
we just finished our weekly telcon
19:20:46 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
19:35:00 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, elf-pavlik, in T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
19:35:01 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has ended
19:35:01 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ann, Arnaud, aaronpk, tantek, +1.541.410.aaaa, jasnell, +1.314.777.aabb, AdamB, elf-pavlik, bret, rhiaro_, eprodrom, +, bblfish, dromasca,
19:35:02 [Zakim]
... Lloyd_Fassett, bill-looby, Sandro, +1.857.445.aadd, hhalpin, Tsyesika, +1.408.335.aaee, +358.503.28aaff
19:35:03 [pfefferle]
pfefferle has joined #social
19:38:58 [the_frey]
the_frey has joined #social
19:40:37 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
19:41:56 [mechanic]
mechanic has joined #social
19:48:28 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #social
19:49:27 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
20:14:40 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
21:02:22 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
21:07:24 [almereyda]
almereyda has joined #social
21:11:26 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
21:15:23 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
21:56:13 [AnnB]
lots of good 'user stories', documented by EvanP (per discussion in meeting this morning):
21:56:14 [AnnB]
21:59:11 [tantek]
these are looking great
22:01:11 [tantek]
so much better than abstract lists of API requirements
22:26:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #social
22:51:14 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #social
22:51:35 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #social
23:43:23 [almereyda]
almereyda has joined #social
23:54:19 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social