16:59:25 RRSAgent has joined #social 16:59:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/31-social-irc 16:59:27 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:59:29 Zakim, this will be SOCL 16:59:29 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute 16:59:30 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 16:59:30 Date: 31 March 2015 16:59:57 eprodrom: oh, was pump.io originally called "activitypump"? 17:00:04 yes 17:00:09 and oshepherd's spec too right? 17:00:12 Yes 17:00:15 so that's two activitypumps 17:00:17 confusing :) 17:00:28 zakim, this is socl 17:00:29 ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM 17:00:39 zakim, who's on the phone? 17:00:40 On the phone I see jasnell, Sandro, Arnaud 17:00:40 + +1.617.247.aaaa 17:00:59 Zakim, aaaa is me 17:00:59 +ben_thatmustbeme; got it 17:01:02 +??P4 17:01:07 Zakim, mute me 17:01:07 ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted 17:01:31 + + 17:01:57 + +1.514.554.aacc 17:02:04 Zakim, aacc is me 17:02:04 +eprodrom; got it 17:03:00 hi 17:03:04 Ah! 17:03:07 +??P3 17:03:11 zakim, ??p3 is me 17:03:11 +tantek; got it 17:03:20 tantek: elf-pavlik left you a message on 3/30 at 11:24am: do you see http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats2#combining_microformats similar to http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#embedding ? http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-03-30/line/1427739866728 17:03:23 zakim, aabb is bblfish 17:03:23 +bblfish; got it 17:03:44 SIP is once again not working here 17:03:46 Arnaud: I'd like to volunteer to scribe 17:03:48 though it is to other servers 17:03:48 not sure 17:03:55 It's been a long time since I scribed 17:04:01 eprodrom++ 17:04:03 eprodrom has 10 karma 17:04:11 it works on the fsf's sip server 17:04:14 scribenick eprodrom 17:04:25 scribenick: eprodrom 17:04:29 I'll just dial in, as soon as my phone gets reception 17:04:30 This time it's personal 17:04:33 elf-pavlik: the microformats embedding in JSON results is based on microdata embedding in JSON, which predates the JSON-LD work. perhaps JSON-LD also copied microdata in that respect. 17:04:35 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-31 17:04:49 eprodrom has changed the topic to: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-31 17:05:12 Arnaud: minutes of 10 March are still missing 17:05:27 Arnaud: skip minutes of 10 March until updated by aaronpk 17:05:50 note, aaronpk offered regrets in advance for today's telcon 17:05:50 +??P8 17:05:51 PROPOSED: Approval of Minutes of 24 March 2015 Teleconf 17:05:57 +Ann 17:05:58 Arnaud: scribes should mark the topics to make it easier to add the minutes 17:05:58 Zakim: ??P8 is me 17:06:00 +21 17:06:00 +1 17:06:01 no objection 17:06:03 Zakim, ??P8 is me 17:06:03 +Tsyesika; got it 17:06:05 RESOLVED: Approval of Minutes of 24 March 2015 Teleconf 17:06:08 Zakim, mute me 17:06:08 Tsyesika should now be muted 17:06:23 Arnaud: We are also missing minutes from the F2F 17:06:36 There was a problem with the IRC logs, hhalpin was going to sort it out 17:06:41 do we at least have good IRC logs from the f2f? 17:06:49 I think mixed ones :) 17:06:49 Next teleconference 4/7 17:06:59 depends, was timbl talking? :) 17:07:02 Arnaud: Next F2F in Paris in May 17:07:14 Arnaud: Pending confirmation of location 17:07:19 he talks so fast 17:07:25 Arnaud: hhalpin confirmed INRIA for F2F 17:07:33 Arnaud: new page for F2F meeting 17:07:53 added myself to regrets for Paris F2F 17:08:02 Arnaud: please add yourself to the sections for the Paris F2F 17:08:03 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-04 17:08:11 Arnaud: there is also a link to hotels 17:08:16 + +1.773.614.aadd 17:08:20 W3C has negotiated a deal with the hotel 17:08:26 Zakim, aadd is me 17:08:26 +cwebber2; got it 17:08:33 Arnaud: it's not the best deal, but it is available 17:08:49 Arnaud: breakfast is included. However, it is nonrefundable. 17:09:12 Arnaud: takes about 30 minutes including walking and Metro from hotel to INRIA. 17:09:41 Arnaud: Everyone will need to buy their own lunch. 17:09:53 Arnaud: we'll continue to organize on the wiki page to develop an agenda. 17:10:03 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83239&oldid=83221 17:10:07 q+ re: formal process to open/close ISSUEs in W3C Tracker 17:10:13 TOPIC: Tracking of Actions and Issues 17:10:23 Arnaud: let's first look at the actions 17:10:33 q+ 17:11:00 q+ 17:11:34 most of the open actions look like things raised / assigned by group / one person to another person - not personal to do 17:11:40 ack jasnell 17:11:52 Arnaud: notes that using the issue tracker for a personal todo system is probably inappropriate but OK now 17:12:07 !tell harry we need action-14 reloved 17:12:07 jasnell: We need ISSUE-14 to be closed, Harry Halpin needs to complete 17:12:08 Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next 17:12:16 I'll note that action-26 has some progress since jasnell merged my first pull request for fixes to microformats examples, and I'm working on more fixes. 17:12:17 jasnell: we're using a namespace that's not official 17:12:30 definitely more coming! thanks! 17:12:31 jasnell: We have had progress on action-26, microformats review 17:12:53 jasnell: action-29, outreach has happened, no need to leave this still open. 17:13:09 Arnaud: we can close action 29 17:13:29 jasnell: I posted a notice to the mailing list about test suites 17:13:33 issue-8 17:13:33 issue-8 -- Test suite for activity streams 2.0 -- open 17:13:33 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/8 17:13:44 did I hear correctly that no one formerly from the open social org responded / decided to join Social Web WG? 17:13:49 re: action-29 17:14:02 ack eprodrom 17:14:21 +[IPcaller] 17:14:24 Zakim, IPcaller is me 17:14:24 +wilkie; got it 17:14:46 hello sorry I'm late!! 17:15:01 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Implementations 17:15:08 elf-pavlik, does action-49 need to be in action tracking? 17:15:11 eprodrom: I'd like to have a mechanism that does it automatically for different programming languages 17:15:38 ben_thatmustbeme, on one published it during last F2F 17:16:03 jasnell: action 50 and 57 could be combined 17:16:24 eprodrom, look at tests in james repo 17:16:51 eprodrom: are there automated example extraction tools? 17:17:04 Arnaud: elf-pavlik, can action 50 and 57 be combined 17:17:37 elf-pavlik: I will work with eprodrom to make the examples easier to use 17:17:50 elf-pavlik: there are some scripts for extracting the examples already 17:17:53 elf-pavlik++ 17:17:55 Thanks 17:17:56 elf-pavlik has 14 karma 17:18:18 q+ 17:18:38 Arnaud: we have a number of issues that have been raised that should be disposed of 17:18:42 wow 18 raised issues 17:18:49 TOPIC: Issues 17:18:53 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/raised 17:18:58 elf-pavlik: you're put down regrets for paris? too bad :( 17:19:03 I was hoping you and Tsyesika could meet! 17:19:10 Arnaud: elf-pavlik and jasnell have both proposed issues to cover 17:19:11 cwebber2, i participate! 17:19:25 ack elf-pavlik 17:19:26 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss formal process to open/close ISSUEs in W3C Tracker 17:20:02 Abasset made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83240&oldid=83239 17:20:16 q+ to prefer using github issues for any issues which are only about the AS spec. 17:20:25 Arnaud: we have two issue trackers, Github and W3C 17:20:52 Arnaud: we should use Github for minor editorial issues, W3C for issues that should be decided by the WG 17:20:52 q+ to also note that I thought we left choice of issue tracking venue up to editor 17:20:56 Arnaud++ 17:20:58 Arnaud has 9 karma 17:21:24 ack jasnell 17:21:45 Arnaud: It's a heavier process, but official 17:21:59 jasnell: ISSUE 4, 7, 20, 23 could be safely closed 17:22:03 -1 17:22:05 -1 17:22:13 jasnell: implicit typing can be closed, until there's a proposal 17:22:21 why is there both an open action and issue on that? 17:22:35 wait I'm confused why are we discussion open vs. raised issues? 17:22:36 jasnell: pre-JSON-LD syntax is addressed in the spec, ISSUE-7 17:22:40 neither 4 nor 7 are "raised" 17:23:14 q+ re: -1 on closing issues which don't have clear resulution *in notes* 17:23:30 my apologies. I missed the part that we were focusing on raised 17:23:39 Arnaud: we should decide whether raised issues should be closed or opened 17:23:57 q+ 17:24:00 one protocol per child 17:24:28 Arnaud: we've suffered from too many discussion protocols 17:24:35 ack tantek 17:24:35 tantek, you wanted to prefer using github issues for any issues which are only about the AS spec. and to also note that I thought we left choice of issue tracking venue up to 17:24:38 ... editor 17:24:51 elf-pavlik: (btw I see my mistake, I misread participants as regrets :)) 17:25:02 (I blame browser scroll behavior!) 17:25:10 tantek: for issues related to a spec, we should defer to the issue tracking mechanism that the spec editor prefers 17:25:40 q+ 17:25:46 ack elf-pavlik 17:25:48 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss -1 on closing issues which don't have clear resulution *in notes* 17:26:15 elf-pavlik: some of the issues that jasnell proposed to close don't have information, so we can't resolve them. 17:26:18 it's not closing if it's not open 17:26:24 it's *rejecting* 17:26:40 if an issue lacks specific links then yes we should reject 17:26:49 elf-pavlik: we didn't clarify whether some issues with vocabulary should be handled at the WG level 17:27:07 i would agree, if there isn't any explanation, it can always be resubmitted with more information 17:27:10 Arnaud: I disagree. It's up to the WG to decide on issues of vocabulary. 17:27:15 Zakim, who is here? 17:27:15 On the phone I see jasnell, Sandro, Arnaud, ben_thatmustbeme (muted), elf-pavlik, bblfish, eprodrom, tantek, Tsyesika (muted), Ann, cwebber2, wilkie 17:27:17 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, elf-pavlik, jasnell, eprodrom, AnnB, rhiaro, tantek, cwebber2, stevenroose, bblfish, ben_thatmustbeme, sandro, Tsyesika, JakeHart, bret, mattl, 17:27:17 ... bigbluehat, wilkie, nickstenn, aaronpk, ElijahLynn, dwhly, Arnaud, Loqi, KevinMarks, wseltzer, trackbot, shepazu 17:27:20 Arnaud: it doesn't have to be done in the call, can be done offline. 17:27:31 ack eprodrom 17:27:35 tantek: to the point about where the issues are being raised... it hasn't been clear that folks are actually using the github issue or looking at issues with the spec issue itself. I raised the issues on the w3c tracker to raise the visibility that there are specific spec issues that ought to be addressed 17:27:55 I'd much rather be dealing with specific spec issues than continually discussing process 17:28:07 jasnell, if you want you can add specific github issues to telcon agendas. no need to go through tracker overhead. 17:28:13 so far, we've spent 30 minutes talking largely about process 17:28:14 +1 tantek 17:28:18 eprodrom: when do issues and actions factor into our acceptance? 17:28:29 jasnell, I'm trying to make less process work for you :/ 17:28:30 Arnaud: we have to document when we are ready to go to the next step 17:28:33 we have agenda wiki page where we can link to gh issues 17:28:55 I'd love it if we could talk about the specific issues now 17:28:59 Arnaud: We need to show our issues as being all closed when we go to candidate recommendation 17:29:28 we should reject as invalid any raised issue that we deem to be lacking sufficient information to understand / process (e.g. lacking links to specific part of spec, or specific example, etc.) 17:29:32 Arnaud: Much of this has to do with documenting that we've done our homework 17:29:36 hopefully that will encourage raising of more well documented issues 17:29:48 Arnaud: but it can be on Github or W3C Tracker 17:29:59 we should not duplicate github issues into tracker 17:30:01 Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83241&oldid=83240 17:30:18 q? 17:30:19 Arnaud: we should document on the wiki that issues should go into Github 17:30:22 spec already links to where its issues are tracked! 17:30:32 ack jasnell 17:30:56 +1 17:30:59 Sounds good 17:31:05 +1 17:31:07 +1 17:31:22 issue-18? 17:31:22 issue-18 -- We need to know if there are any other products in this space and if there are any dependencies between ldp and opensocial planned in the future? -- raised 17:31:22 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/18 17:31:40 jasnell: reviewing issue 18, not sure there's value. It's rather vague. 17:31:49 I would assume not if opensocial isn't really happneing anymore 17:31:52 Arnaud: hhalpin has an action to clarify issue 18 17:32:03 issue-19? 17:32:03 issue-19 -- WG communication channel explosion -- raised 17:32:03 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/19 17:32:05 Erik not on a call 17:32:12 which one? 17:32:28 jasnell: issue-20 on text sequences: no existing implementations are doing it, no user stories require it 17:32:29 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-19, out of scope 17:32:36 -1 Erik not on a call 17:32:40 issue-20 17:32:40 issue-20 -- Represent Collections using JSON Text Sequences (RFC 7464) -- raised 17:32:40 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/20 17:32:41 s/Close/Reject 17:32:44 -1 Erik not on a call 17:32:45 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-20, out of scope 17:33:02 suggest we reject 18 due to non-participation of open social people 17:33:13 +1 on rejecting issue-20 17:33:38 +1 on accepting (opening) issue-22 17:33:41 jasnell: issue-22 is very general 17:33:50 issue-22 17:33:50 issue-22 -- Need to get data on implementor interest on specific features of the as spec -- raised 17:33:50 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/22 17:34:02 this is the larger problem of scope / size / feature set of AS 17:34:10 or harry during F2F 17:34:22 +1 to reject 22 17:35:15 tantek: This issue is about what we should put at-risk 17:35:24 q? 17:35:26 q+ 17:36:02 tantek: I'm trying to slim down the spec so we can get it accepted 17:36:03 ack eprodrom 17:36:07 +1 issue-22 becomes ACTION on tantek :) 17:36:13 I think we deal with the issue best by looking a specific items 17:36:16 lol elf-pavlik 17:36:41 +1 to reject issue 22 for lack of description! 17:36:42 q+ if processors are only doing general mapping, then we should drop specific actions 17:36:54 q+ to say if processors are only doing general mapping, then we should drop specific actions 17:37:10 should we reach out to gnip and echo? they are big AS users so would have data on what is expressed 17:37:15 q? 17:37:19 q+ 17:37:23 ack tantek 17:37:23 tantek, you wanted to say if processors are only doing general mapping, then we should drop specific actions 17:37:40 +??P12 17:37:45 eprodrom: hard to do in the AS 2.0 process since most implementations are going to be general 17:37:46 Zakim, ??P12 is me 17:37:46 +bret; got it 17:37:51 Zakim, mute me 17:37:51 bret should now be muted 17:38:17 tantek: I'm concerned that we don't have any implementations besides test ones 17:38:25 ack jasnell 17:38:33 tantek: if implementations will be general, why have a vocabulary? 17:38:59 jasnell: we have the core and the vocabulary 17:39:04 I think elf-pavlik has done some work on specific vocabulary vs. user-stories? 17:39:15 I vaguely remember seeing a wiki edit about that 17:39:20 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Vocabulary_TF/Mapping_API_User_Stories_to_Vocabulary_terms 17:39:20 jasnell: vocabulary is more focused on API 17:39:31 IG has Use Case TF and Vocabulary TF 17:39:35 thanks elf-pavlik that's a good start 17:39:53 jasnell: we need to map user stories to what the API is actually going to do 17:40:03 Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83242&oldid=83241 17:40:08 jasnell: and identify the minimal set that matches those user stories 17:40:09 jasnell, I'm ok with letting you drop anything (per editor discretion) you think should be dropped :) 17:40:42 sounds like jasnell is proposing an action on himself as a way of closing 22 17:40:47 jasnell: I think we can close issue-22 if we can reconcile types in the vocabulary while we're going through the user stories 17:41:03 q+ 17:41:12 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Vocabulary_TF/Mapping_API_User_Stories_to_Vocabulary_terms 17:41:19 Arnaud: jasnell is already going through the spec for this 17:41:21 ack bblfish 17:41:26 then we don't need a specific action 17:41:35 trust jasnell to edit and track his own actions 17:41:45 no need to micromanage 17:41:49 thanks jasnell 17:41:54 bblfish: start working on the api, then come back and find what's not used 17:42:07 no objection 17:42:12 PROPOSED: close issue-22 17:42:19 +1 for no description 17:42:19 q+ 17:42:20 +1 to reject 22 17:42:24 RESOLVED: close issue-22 17:42:31 ack jasnell 17:42:44 jasnell: issue-23, backwards compatibility is already handled in the current spec 17:42:56 jasnell: issue doesn't discuss why the current text is not adequate 17:43:03 reject issue-23 due to lack of specific backcompat problem 17:43:05 +1 close it for no description and duplicate of issue-7 17:43:06 +??P13 17:43:07 reject issue-23 17:43:07 Arnaud: we also have issue-7 17:43:11 Zakim, ??P13 is me 17:43:11 +Tsyesika; got it 17:43:14 sorry about that 17:43:15 spec already has a section on backcompat 17:43:18 Zakim, mute me 17:43:18 Tsyesika was already muted, Tsyesika 17:43:23 PROPOSED: close issue-23 17:43:25 +1 reject 23 insufficient information 17:43:28 close 23 17:43:31 +1 to reject-23 17:43:32 +1 17:43:42 RESOLVED: close issue-23 17:44:04 API 17:44:05 Issue-2$? 17:44:05 Issue-2 -- What namespace should the Activity Streams 2.0 specification use? -- closed 17:44:05 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/2 17:44:09 Issue-24? 17:44:09 Issue-24 -- Do we put requirement on supporting static websites? -- raised 17:44:09 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/24 17:44:19 jasnell: issue-24, is this related to AS2.0? 17:44:20 q+ re issue-24 17:44:38 tantek: I thought that issue-24 was covered at F2F 17:44:54 q? 17:45:01 q+ 17:45:01 tantek: anything we develop for API must support static web sites 17:45:03 q+ 17:45:06 ack elf-pavlik 17:45:07 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss issue-24 17:45:13 recommend closing issue-24 17:45:28 Not sure what was meant by "accepted". I don't agree this is a confirmed requirement. 17:45:32 I don't think we should 17:45:34 elf-pavlik: I raised this issue because we should decide if it was accepted 17:45:37 -1 17:45:42 how could a static site work with an api 17:45:55 cwebber2 several work with micropub *today* 17:45:58 that's the point 17:46:08 we've figured out how to make static sites work with an API 17:46:09 Arnaud: please mark issues as API, AS 2.0, or Federation 17:46:13 +1 to closing it 17:46:28 tantek: I'd be interested in finding out how :) 17:46:33 q+ 17:46:43 jasnell: API should be agnostic 17:46:45 jasnell: API should be agnostic as to whether website is static or not 17:46:47 I'm a bit worried 17:46:48 I publish consumable social data with a static website currently 17:46:51 jasnell: API should be able to support it 17:47:03 we have 10 minutes left and I think there's a lot left on the agenda, and we've mostly communicated about communicating so far in this meeting 17:47:10 The issue should define what a static web site is 17:47:13 elf-pavlik: AS2.0 requires content negotiation at least 17:47:15 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-24, there is no special requirement on static sites 17:47:24 +1 17:47:25 +1 17:47:27 +1 to close it 17:47:32 -1 keep it open because clearly we disagree 17:47:37 +1 close it 17:47:38 requirement *for* 17:47:42 thus it is an issue 17:47:57 jasnell and myself think API should support static sites 17:48:06 tantek: perhaps the issue needs to be better clarified 17:48:08 wheras elf-pavlik (and others?) don't 17:48:10 q+ 17:48:57 tantek: if we disagree, we should open the issue 17:49:02 -1 we need to clarify our position 17:49:11 ack bblfish 17:49:11 Arnaud: elf-pavlik can close an issue he has raised 17:49:29 bblfish here is definition of a static website: https://indiewebcamp.com/static-site 17:49:37 which is linked from the issue 17:49:39 adding to issue as note 17:49:39 issue-24 17:49:39 issue-24 -- Do we put requirement on supporting static websites? -- raised 17:49:39 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/24 17:49:40 bblfish: if we use the proposal, we should define a static web site 17:49:45 There is clearly more discussion needed here, issue should be opened 17:49:51 +1 to open 17:49:52 ok, if there's disagreement, I'll change mine to a -1 to closing it. +1 to opening the issue so it can be discussed further 17:50:04 +1 to open 17:50:05 q? 17:50:10 ack eprodrom 17:50:25 delegation 17:50:30 +1 open 17:50:38 eprodrom: I find it hard to understand how we could have an API that was read-only that was useful 17:50:39 PROPOSED: open issue-24 17:50:50 RESOLVED: open issue-24 17:50:58 delegation, using follow-your-nose would indeed allow static sites 17:51:08 oh boy. definitely think this deserves opening 17:51:13 issue-21 17:51:13 issue-21 -- Role of JSON-LD and RDF -- closed 17:51:13 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/21 17:51:25 +q 17:51:27 See http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-social-irc#T18-15-09 17:51:27 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-21 re-affirming we'll use JSON-LD as in the current draft, with a normative context, and let people bring up sub-issues 17:51:38 harry has joined #social 17:51:44 elf-pavlik: ++ 17:51:50 q+ 17:51:58 elf-pavlik, but this is about *API*, not AS 17:52:04 hi everyone, I'm at Google and can't talk, but can answer questions in IRC. 17:52:05 ack cwebber2 17:52:11 Apologies for the excessive travelling in the last two weeks 17:52:14 harry: elf-pavlik left you a message 40 minutes ago: we need action-14 reloved http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-03-31/line/1427821927462 17:52:16 jasnell: with issue-25, we have only one syntax to ship, so it's not clear why we'd use multiple syntaxes 17:52:31 cwebber2: will we get to any other agenda items? 17:52:42 My feeling is only ship JSON-based syntax, but URL-based encoding is a URL formation question, and so would count as something to ship 17:52:48 jasnell, see above, this issue about is about *API* specifically, not AS (which "has only one syntax to ship") 17:52:51 Arnaud: people should be careful and very specific about issues they raise 17:52:59 Arnaud: we should be careful with the issues we raise, and have a proposed resolution 17:53:04 HTML-based syntaxes (ala microformats2) have I believe the ability to be transformed to JSON programmatically 17:53:07 propose opening issue 25 17:53:08 tantek: understood, just need to figure out the minimal requirement here 17:53:14 (would need tantek to step in to clarify) 17:53:17 Arnaud: I have proposed at the F2F to do 1.5h meetings 17:53:24 jasnell, method to minimum requirement may mean a smaller syntax 17:53:30 Arnaud: we can't progress unless we close issues 17:53:31 +1 on extending call, at least sometimes 17:53:35 proposal: we extend this call 30 minutes 17:53:37 +1 on extending call 17:53:41 +1 extending 17:53:48 for next week 17:53:50 I have a 2PM call, so I'll need someone to take over for me. 17:53:56 I'd be happy extending, but 17:54:04 I really wanted eprodrom to be on the stuff for the activitypump stuff :P 17:54:08 if he can't make it 17:54:11 we'll have to do next week 17:54:12 maybe announce for next time that it'll be an extended call? so people can plan it into their calendars 17:54:13 Arnaud, to be fair, we've had a backlog of raised issues for weeks 17:54:22 cwebber2: can we defer until next? 17:54:29 eprodrom: I can do take over if necessary 17:54:31 eprodrom: we can totally defer :) 17:54:41 Arnaud: we are having a hard time with this group because of lots of different channels 17:54:43 eprodrom, proposal is to extend call NEXT week 17:54:46 q? 17:54:48 Arnaud: you are doing a great job btw, thanks 17:54:51 you're doing a GREAT job, Arnaud 17:54:52 I don't think extensions are always needed, maybe just try and get through things a bit quicker 17:54:52 ack cwebber2 17:54:52 I think we have only 3 channels: IRC, wiki, email 17:54:55 +1 to an extended call next week 17:54:56 tantek: let's extend the call next week 17:54:57 Arnaud++ 17:54:57 -1q 17:54:58 everything else is not a channel 17:54:58 Arnaud has 10 karma 17:54:58 -q 17:54:59 ack cwebber 17:55:04 +1 extended calls, starting next week 17:55:04 I'm done already :) 17:55:07 it seems like we spent 10 minutes on if we should use github or tracker 17:55:08 ack eprodrom 17:55:14 q+ 17:55:19 ack jasnell 17:55:22 eprodrom++ 17:55:24 eprodrom has 11 karma 17:55:25 eprodrom might need help chairing, if it's a longer meeting 17:55:26 PROPOSAL: 1.5 hr telcon next week 17:55:35 make it 2, tantek 17:55:37 +1 17:55:50 can always end early if everyone gets too tired 17:56:00 jasnell: it would be good if the conversation could be raised on the wiki where everyone could respond 17:56:26 I can't be on IRC all the time 17:56:38 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-31#Tracking_of_Actions_and_Issues 17:56:56 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Mar/0230.html 17:56:57 Arnaud: make specific proposals on the mailing list, to make these happen 17:57:08 can we start with 1.5? 17:57:12 wilkie: if you could take over here I'd appreciate it 17:57:24 +1000 *more work prior to the meeting* 17:57:24 will do 17:57:34 can I make a proposal for doing less meeting/communication time about communication time, or is that meta 17:57:36 scribenick: wilkie 17:57:38 are we at risk of meta-recursion 17:57:43 more work prior to the meeting is indeed important 17:57:46 Thanks all, sorry for the quick cut-out 17:57:47 cwebber2++ 17:57:49 cwebber2 has 24 karma 17:57:50 -eprodrom 17:57:52 Arnaud: people need to pay attention and respond to the issues 17:57:58 still have an open proposal 17:58:00 My feeling is to really think before bringing up issues, we bring them up often when they are pseudo-issues or clearly out of scope 17:58:04 tantek: I propose we do end the call 17:58:06 and work more *prior* to the meeting 17:58:07 -bblfish 17:58:10 I would defer some of these issues to the editor 17:58:11 got to go 17:58:13 Arnaud: I agree. is there anything else or do we call it a day now? 17:58:14 as github comments 17:58:34 jasnell: the next item is very specific and may be very in depth, it may be best to postpone discussion 17:58:44 Arnaud: how can we help as community members 17:58:45 ? 17:58:47 Arnaud: ok. we need to be, as a group, more effective at addressing this 17:58:48 to keep things on board? 17:59:00 let's continue over mailing list and IRC with https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-31#Defining_and_documenting_WG_workflows ? 17:59:08 -Sandro 17:59:12 -Tsyesika.a 17:59:17 thanks eprodrom, wilkie for scribing 17:59:20 Arnaud: let's call it a day. thank you evan for scribing. thanks for joining. let's try to get together and make progress. 17:59:24 -jasnell 17:59:26 Arnaud++ 17:59:27 Arnaud has 11 karma 17:59:28 -tantek 17:59:30 -Ann 17:59:30 -Arnaud 17:59:32 -ben_thatmustbeme 17:59:33 -wilkie 17:59:48 -cwebber2 18:00:00 -bret 18:00:12 -elf-pavlik 18:03:31 action-52 18:03:31 action-52 -- Harry Halpin to Discuss re github -- due 2015-03-25 -- OPEN 18:03:31 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/52 18:03:34 harry, ? 18:03:48 yep, we can move things over, but I don't run the W3C github, Robin Berjon does. 18:03:55 I'll ask him to setup a /social space for each of our specs 18:04:21 he can create a team there 18:04:35 and then we can move existing or create new repositories 18:04:43 Yep, who wants to be on that github team? 18:05:13 jasnell, can you imagine moving some of the ISSUEs from W3C tracker to github? we will encourage everyone to engage there but will cut on this time consuming process 18:05:31 harry, all WG and IG members with github accounts 18:05:42 ok, I'll send an email asking for these on a wiki list 18:05:45 it's going to be just as time consuming. It doesn't matter where the issues are recorded if folks aren't looking at them and discussing them 18:06:09 jasnell, i agree that we need to give each other feedback 18:06:19 but W3C tracker ISSUE just adds overhead 18:06:23 let's at lest use ACTION 18:06:25 and it needs to come from more than just the same very small number of people 18:06:31 so we don't have this formal PROPOSE open PROPOSE close 18:06:47 those are all just shortcuts for trackbot to edit tracker 18:06:58 they're in theory supposed to help 18:06:59 and it needs to be focused on specific technical issues rather than high level data modeling and process type questions. We need to start dealing with specifics or we are wasting time 18:07:05 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc 18:07:32 harry, jasnell do you joine IG call tomorrow? ping AnnB 18:07:36 yep 18:08:05 I have a standing conflict for that time slot that I'm unable to get out of 18:08:07 i thouight we do more specific vocab stuff there 18:08:23 jasnell, will you join us in Paris for F2F3 ? 18:08:34 we also have pool to change IG telecon time 18:09:36 elf-pavlik: I don't expect IG to make any progress on any specific vocab stuff - as that needs to be more implementation interest driven 18:09:39 it's not clear if I'll be able to make it to Paris yet. There's a bit of a personal scheduling conflict for me that week. I won't know for another couple of weeks 18:09:44 and implementers are focused in/on the WG 18:10:08 trackbot, end meeting 18:10:08 Zakim, list attendees 18:10:08 As of this point the attendees have been jasnell, Sandro, Arnaud, +1.617.247.aaaa, ben_thatmustbeme, elf-pavlik, +, +1.514.554.aacc, eprodrom, tantek, bblfish, Ann, 18:10:11 ... Tsyesika, +1.773.614.aadd, cwebber2, wilkie, bret 18:10:16 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 18:10:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/31-social-minutes.html trackbot 18:10:17 RRSAgent, bye 18:10:17 I see no action items