18:01:49 RRSAgent has joined #social 18:01:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-social-irc 18:01:51 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:01:51 Zakim has joined #social 18:01:53 Zakim, this will be SOCL 18:01:53 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start now 18:01:54 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 18:01:54 Date: 03 February 2015 18:02:21 Zakim, who is on the phone? 18:02:21 T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, tantek 18:02:22 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 ... JakeHart, dwhly, mattl, rhiaro_, oshepherd_, rektide, nickstenn, KevinMarks, ShaneHudson, pdurbin, ben_thatmust, bret, Tsyesika, ben_thatmustbeme, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, 18:02:22 ... sandro, wseltzer 18:02:26 almereyda_ has joined #social 18:02:34 zakim, this is socl 18:02:34 ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM 18:02:46 zakim, who's on the phone? 18:02:46 On the phone I see Ann, Arnaud, [Mozilla] 18:02:49 +aaronpk 18:02:56 Zakim, Mozilla has me 18:02:56 +tantek; got it 18:03:02 chair: tantek 18:03:09 + +1.541.410.aaaa 18:03:12 +jasnell 18:03:37 AdamB has joined #social 18:04:12 + +1.314.777.aabb 18:04:24 +??P5 18:04:26 zakim, aabb is me 18:04:26 +AdamB; got it 18:04:30 +??P8 18:04:35 +??P9 18:04:36 Zakim, ??P5 is me 18:04:36 +bret; got it 18:04:40 +eprodrom 18:04:43 Zakim, mute me 18:04:43 bret should now be muted 18:04:45 zakim, who is here? 18:04:45 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 [Mozilla] has tantek 18:04:47 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 ... Arnaud, JakeHart, dwhly, mattl, rhiaro_, oshepherd_, rektide, nickstenn, KevinMarks, ShaneHudson, pdurbin, ben_thatmust, bret, Tsyesika, ben_thatmustbeme, kylewm, aaronpk, 18:04:47 ... trackbot, sandro, wseltzer 18:05:18 + +33.6.47.14.aacc 18:05:28 melvster has joined #social 18:05:32 zakim, aacc is me 18:05:32 +bblfish; got it 18:05:34 Zakim, aaaa is Lloyd_Fassett 18:05:36 +dromasca 18:05:36 +Lloyd_Fassett; got it 18:05:48 scribenick: aaronpk 18:06:15 bill-looby has joined #social 18:06:15 Zakim, what's the code? 18:06:15 the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), hhalpin 18:06:20 dromasca has joined #social 18:06:27 chair: tantek 18:06:36 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-02-03 18:06:44 tantek: first order of business is to approve last weeks minutes 18:06:50 +[IPcaller] 18:07:01 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-01-27-minutes 18:07:03 zakim ipcaller is me 18:07:04 tantek I believe I have an open action to add the IBM Connections discussion to the agenda 18:07:30 okay then up to evan toa dd the items to the agenda before the end 18:07:35 looked very lively :) 18:07:37 any opinions on last weeks' minutes? 18:07:48 ...shall we approve them? 18:07:51 +1 18:07:53 ...not hearing any objections 18:08:06 ...based on no objections and one +1, declare the minutes approved 18:08:11 ...next item 18:08:23 TOPIC: open issues 18:08:24 +Sandro 18:08:29 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/open 18:08:48 tantek: first issue, should we drop verbs and only use object types 18:08:51 + +1.857.445.aadd 18:08:52 q+ re: ACTION-26 Review microformats due jan 14, 2015 18:08:59 Zakim, aadd is hhalpin 18:08:59 +hhalpin; got it 18:09:00 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/3 18:09:04 Zakim, mute hhalpin 18:09:05 hhalpin should now be muted 18:09:28 ...any suggestions for how we resolve this since it's not assigned to anyone 18:09:35 q+ 18:10:00 this has already been done in the current working draft 18:10:01 Arnaud: we can give someone an action to come up with a proposal to address an issue 18:10:09 ack elf-pavlik 18:10:09 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss ACTION-26 Review microformats due jan 14, 2015 18:10:45 i'll type 18:10:47 (sound is breaking up... sounds like a mic level issue) 18:10:51 can't hear Elf either 18:11:00 q+ 18:11:01 q? 18:11:05 ack jasnell 18:11:06 tantek: if this is about the open issue type in IRC, otherwise will ack james 18:11:17 +??P16 18:11:28 Zakim, ??P16 is me 18:11:28 +Tsyesika; got it 18:11:31 jasnell: re: verbs, the current draft already dropped verb 18:11:32 q- 18:11:33 Zakim, mute me 18:11:34 Tsyesika should now be muted 18:11:38 Tsyesika: elf-pavlik left you a message 3 weeks, 6 days ago: sorry for ping just checking Loqi ... 18:11:40 ...the verb property from the original AS has already been deprecated 18:11:46 +1 resolved 18:11:49 +1 resolved 18:11:59 I just closed it 18:12:32 https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/4 18:12:41 q? 18:12:42 tantek: next issue explicit or implicit typing 18:13:05 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 ...i'm sure an implementation could choose to do implicit if it wanted, but right now the approach is explicit 18:13:26 tantek: is there anyone here who would like to propose implicit typing? 18:13:39 I suppose implicit typing would require rdf:domain and rdf:range 18:13:40 ...specifically how to do it 18:13:45 Not me and I believe the current typing is good 18:13:59 ???: I don't have an opinion on this, but if you wanted to, you'd specify the domain and range 18:14:05 s/???/bblfish 18:14:09 ...and then an rdf inferencing engine would be able to infer it 18:14:22 ...but we don't want to make people rely on this in the beginning, better to make it explicit 18:14:26 yep, its highly unlikely anyone will use RDF(S) inferencing. 18:14:29 tantek, i think you came up with it so maybe you could take action to research it further? 18:14:47 tantek: are you proposing a way to do it, or are you saying here are some thoughts 18:15:02 bblfish: i'm fine with explicit typing, if youwant implicit you have to do domain and range 18:15:32 If I am wrong then it's because I have not understood the problem 18:15:44 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 ...based on property names 18:15:58 Create an action 18:16:12 ACTION: tantek to come up with a simple proposal for implicit typing based on property names https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/4 18:16:12 Created ACTION-35 - Come up with a simple proposal for implicit typing based on property names https://www.w3.org/social/track/issues/4 [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-02-10]. 18:16:46 tantek: next issue: need glossary for terms https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/5 18:17:00 tantek: ann did you raise this at the f2f? 18:17:15 q+ 18:17:19 tantek: we were using a lot of jargon at the f2f and we didn't all agree necessarily 18:17:29 I wonder if this can be subsumed by use cases 18:17:39 AnnB: we do have lloyd, chair of the vocab task force in the IG 18:17:44 tantek: no this isn't for vocabulary, just in prose 18:17:57 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Use_Case_TF/Profile_Use_Cases/Federation_of_Profile_Information_to_a_New_Social_Network_or_System 18:17:59 AnnB: a glossary is similar to teh vocabulary no? 18:18:21 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 ...the idae was that we would grab some of the jargon terms and nail them down 18:18:45 ...i'm happy with closing the issue, don't believe it's necessary. i'm happy to live with the ambiguity 18:19:03 +1 on waiting until another problem 18:19:07 tantek: anyone else happy to live with the ambiguity until we run into a problem? 18:19:19 -Ann 18:19:20 AnnB: if we encounter a specific issue we can address then 18:19:23 +1 18:19:33 tantek: proposeal to closing with no resolution 18:19:51 the_frey has joined #social 18:20:01 I closed it 18:20:07 +Ann 18:20:10 lloyd: my perspective is federation through vocabulary is a circular argument 18:20:35 ...to 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 tantek: that's not what the issue was about, just that we couldn't agree on what federation meant 18:20:45 q+ 18:20:54 hhalpin: thanks 18:21:08 lloyd: agree with living with the ambiguity for now 18:21:21 IMHO this "federation" conversation will go on forever 18:21:25 bblfish: suggestion to drop "federation" and use "p2p" 18:21:26 tantek can we just say "any updates to actions and issues" and move on? 18:21:27 so let's take that to the IG mailing list 18:21:29 https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/6 18:21:33 q? 18:21:36 q- 18:21:38 q- 18:22:00 tantek: sandro can I assign this to you? 18:22:02 ISSUE-6: Make sure we have teleconferencing equipment for next f2f 18:22:02 Notes added to ISSUE-6 Make sure we have teleconferencing equipment for next f2f. 18:22:22 ACTION: sandro resolve issue 6 https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/6 18:22:22 Created ACTION-36 - Resolve issue 6 https://www.w3.org/social/track/issues/6 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2015-02-10]. 18:22:45 https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/8 18:22:47 tantek: next issue, 8 18:22:50 ISSUE-8: Test suite for activity streams 2.0 18:22:50 Notes added to ISSUE-8 Test suite for activity streams 2.0. 18:23:30 ISSUE-8 18:23:30 ISSUE-8 -- Test suite for activity streams 2.0 -- open 18:23:30 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/8 18:23:31 Are we discussing Issue 7 ? or does pending review mean addressing outside this call ? 18:23:40 tantek: we don't currently have any concrete plans for a test suite 18:23:43 q+ 18:23:50 ...anyone want to volunteer to work on at least a plan for a test suite 18:23:54 q+ 18:23:59 q? 18:24:00 ack 18:24:04 ack bblfish 18:24:17 bblfish: recently looked at a case of an ontology written out, and these are difficult to test currently 18:24:33 ...so 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 tantek: hold on we don't need a specific plan right now, are you willing to agree to take the action 18:25:17 Zakim, unmute hhalpin 18:25:17 hhalpin should no longer be muted 18:25:25 bblfish: i'm just saying why don't we ask other people what tools we use 18:25:37 I am saying why don't we ask people in the OWL / RDF land 18:25:40 hhalpin: having been in those WGs there's nothing useful 18:25:56 s/hhalpin/sandro 18:26:02 hhalpin: we can use the standard W3C javascript test tools 18:26:29 ACTION: hhalpin put forth the test suite plan using standard JS tools https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/8 18:26:30 Created ACTION-37 - Put forth the test suite plan using standard js tools https://www.w3.org/social/track/issues/8 [on Harry Halpin - due 2015-02-10]. 18:26:36 tantek: next issues 9 and 10 18:26:43 ...skip those for now since that's what we're working on 18:26:53 ...any actions that anyone wants to report progress on? 18:27:01 https://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/open 18:27:12 q+ 18:27:12 q+ 18:27:15 ...if nothing to report, we'll move on to the rest of the agenda 18:27:20 +1 18:27:33 q? 18:27:34 ack hhalpin 18:27:36 ack hhalpin 18:27:44 i'm off queue 18:27:48 ack jasnell 18:28:01 Woohoo 18:28:06 jasnell: the AS drafts were published on thursday 18:28:08 I added a countdown for 2/5 12:00am (#5603) 18:28:13 aaronpk: yes 18:28:17 q? 18:28:19 ack bill-looby 18:28:34 bill-looby: been looking at proposed API, but still don't have access to the wiki 18:28:36 ++ to jasnell 18:28:46 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-02-03#Move_forward_with_social_API 18:28:48 date 18:28:59 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 eprodrom: thanks tantek. so last week we had an action item to approve a list of requirements 18:29:17 ...which opened up a lot of conversations 18:29:27 ...which is great in a lot of ways, but is also difficult cause we can go all over the place 18:29:35 ...had a lot of discussion on the mailing list and on the telcon last week 18:29:53 ...one 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 + +1.408.335.aaee 18:30:10 ...in discussion with teh other chairs, in order to move forward, we proposed a mechanism and schedule for pushing the process forward 18:30:14 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-02-03#Move_forward_with_social_API 18:30:21 ...the idea is in three steps 18:30:31 ...first step is take the list of requirements we have now, 18:30:41 ...things like creating social connections, posting new content, repsonding to content 18:30:48 ...using each fo the high level groupings to create a user story 18:30:59 ...we have about 10 high level groupings, so we create a set of 10 user stories 18:31:05 ...would have those ready to go for next week, Feb 10 18:31:23 ...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 .. 18:31:31 ...will be doing this on the wiki so people can review 18:31:53 ...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 ...to upvote/downvote user stories 18:32:14 0? 18:32:15 ...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 ...there's nothing in this keeping us from developing candidate proposals 18:32:54 ...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 if we have 0 user stories does that mean we have no specs to do? 18:33:00 ...any questions abotu the procesS? 18:33:02 q? 18:33:12 q+ 18:33:20 tantek: would like to point out there is one user story to be used as at template for developing user stories 18:33:42 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 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Use_Case_TF/Profile_Use_Cases#Profile_Use_Cases 18:33:59 ack AnnB 18:34:00 ack AnnB 18:34:01 I'd say "very simple" 18:34:07 bblfish: thanks 18:34:16 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 how does the swat0 use case differ from something like this: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Use_Case_TF/Profile_Use_Cases/Social_Profile_Creation 18:34:30 ...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 ...but we didn't get them into a common use case template 18:34:56 ...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 ...my question is your call now for user stories, is that comparable to use cases? 18:35:29 ...what more oculd we do here to be useful 18:35:45 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 ...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 ...also does anyone have an understanding of user stories that is far different fomr that? 18:36:23 tantek: there is a key implicit question of "why" 18:36:37 ...it's good to document in steps, ann's example of social profile creation is a good step in that direction 18:36:53 ...when evan and i developed swat0 years ago, there was a clear motivation of why behind the user story 18:37:03 ...this is osmething people do today, they take pictures and post them and tag each other 18:37:09 ...it was based on existing behavior 18:37:15 ...the why is an important aspect of any use case 18:37:33 ...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 ...there are no service where you just createa profile for its own sake, you're doing it for a reason 18:38:05 AnnB: i was thinking the narrative in these describes the why 18:38:14 ...in the case of profile, pretty much all other actions depend on the profile being createdin the first place 18:38:26 ... were trying to boil it down into twitter-like succinct steps 18:38:36 ...we have some exmaples out there, would be useful to get some feedback now 18:38:47 ...would be interested to know how these are different from user stories 18:38:56 note that last week there was consensus about requiring "tweetable" summaries of use-cases / user-stories, so I summarized as such for SWAT0: http://tantek.com/2015/029/t1/swat0-posts-tags-mobile-photo-comment and in tweet form: https://twitter.com/t/status/560921112767242241 18:38:56 tantek: since you bvrought up the point about having tweetable user stories 18:38:58 @t :: SWAT0 18:38:59 danbri has joined #social 18:38:59 A posts+tags mobile photo of B 18:39:00 B photo notified 18:39:01 C(follows A) sees it; replies 18:39:02 A&B comment notified 18:39:03 Prev: http://tantek.com/2015/029/t1/swat0-posts-tags-mobile-photo-comment 18:39:14 tantek: would like to put this forth as a proposal 18:39:35 PROPOSAL: any user stories that are posted have a tweetable basic summary of the steps 18:39:39 can we use images to game the tweet limit? 18:39:56 hehe 18:39:56 AnnB: might be too brief. in some cases we might get stuck tyring to make it too short 18:40:04 KevinMarks, you mean like a screenshot of twitter rejecting your really long tweet? :-) 18:40:10 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 q+ 18:40:47 AnnB: the IG has focused ont he profile use cases because pretty much everything derives from a profile 18:40:52 ack sandro 18:40:54 ...but perhaps we should expand our horizons now 18:41:16 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 ...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 seems to me there needs to be more than SWAT0 18:41:52 ...once we have that we can delve more into fleshing them out 18:41:53 but which? 18:41:58 and how do they get approved? 18:42:10 Lloyd_Fassett has joined #social 18:42:21 welcome Lloyd_Fassett 18:42:25 (on IRC) 18:42:26 AnnB: i'm now chairing the IG, trying to focus that energy into whatever is useful in the WG 18:42:32 ...that's our mission is to be supportive of teh WG 18:42:46 -bill-looby 18:42:48 eprodrom: we could probably talk about the purpose of the IG 18:43:09 ...i would love to take the requirement list and convert them into user stories, waill try to keep them short 18:43:16 ...may be an interesting exercise to make them tweetable 18:43:21 Frankly Tweets are a bit overrated 18:43:25 ...the help of the IG over the next week would be to review those 18:43:26 use emoji instead of A,B,C : https://twitter.com/kevinmarks/status/562682597772627968 18:43:28 @kevinmarks :: "@t: SWAT0 18:43:29 👱posts+tags mobile photo of 👲 18:43:29 ...this is really about getting the social API out 18:43:30 👲photo notified 18:43:31 👳(follows 👱) sees it; replies 18:43:32 👱&👲comment notified 18:43:33 Prev: http://t.co/U3j2gqf36Q" 18:43:38 thanks tantek! 18:43:55 ...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 bblfish: the "tweet" constraint is a deliberate forcing function for simplification, and reducing "essays" which tend to otherwise occur 18:44:06 ...effort is to get the drafts up ASAP and have the IG review them 18:44:12 good feedback, eprodrom; thanks 18:44:16 make that bblfish, the "tweet" constraint is a deliberate forcing function for simplification, and reducing "essays" which tend to otherwise occur 18:44:16 ...I might even be able to have them ready for tomororw's IG call 18:44:58 ACTION eprodrom: convert social API requirements to 2-10 user stories of 3-5 sentences each 18:44:58 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_ has joined #social 18:45:33 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 q+ will there be enough time for people to add their own stories, in case they find some missing? 18:45:58 will there be enough time for people to add their own stories, in case they find some missing? 18:46:01 ...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 +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 q+ 18:46:29 ...you 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 q? 18:46:36 ...or if you have already implmeemntned it 18:46:52 note that some of us (e.g., me) don't implement things 18:47:01 ack bblfish 18:47:17 AnnB, you can speak to the products that Boeing wants 18:47:38 q+ 18:47:55 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 q+ 18:48:11 Zakim, unmute hhalpin 18:48:11 hhalpin was not muted, harry 18:48:12 ...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 ack harry 18:48:13 Zakim, unmute harry 18:48:14 sorry, harry, I do not know which phone connection belongs to harry 18:48:29 hhalpin: quick note, effectively we're doing this process because we had such disagreement over the requirements 18:48:33 ...this seems like the best way forward 18:48:38 ...we don't have to accept all the user storeies 18:48:47 ...what we didn't want is open-ended user stories 18:49:03 ...what we wanted is user stories that we use to psuh out the API draft and know the benchmarks of it 18:49:05 q+ 18:49:09 ...at least a rough consensus 18:49:11 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 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 ...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 ...we dont' want to do that in the user stories 18:49:41 ...they have to be implementation independent at this point 18:50:04 ...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 q? 18:50:13 ack eprodrom 18:50:21 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories 18:50:31 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 Again, we had to do this because we didn't have agreement on requirement list 18:50:45 ...it 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 ...I did not mean t osuggest it was not ok to add user stories 18:51:00 q- 18:51:02 So rough consensus on a small set of user-stories seems reasonable to push through 18:51:11 tantek: okay does that help clarify the proposal? 18:51:19 ...does everyone understand this week vs next week? 18:51:22 Yes, chairs have regular meetings, that's normal AnnB 18:51:28 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 that's fine, just trying to get the understanding of the timetable clear. 18:51:44 When can we expect the first stories to be down? 18:51:45 particularly when Working Group needs to focus on getting chartered deliverables though. 18:51:45 +1 18:51:46 +1 18:51:49 +1 18:51:50 +1 18:51:51 +1 18:51:54 +1 18:52:04 +1 18:52:06 bblfish I can't commit to having them ready before 10 Feb 18:52:06 +1 (I think) 18:52:07 +1 with "votes" being feedback about user stories, and who cares about them, more than up-vs-down 18:52:15 But I will try to work on them in the next 48 hours 18:52:28 +1 18:52:31 +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 +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 oh .. that's not what I thought this vote was about 18:53:10 ???: we'l see a few user stories come out as most exciting 18:53:20 s/???/sandro 18:53:21 tantek: important to capture implementer interest as well 18:53:22 AnnB: they're describing what the "voting" on the wiki will mean 18:53:34