17:00:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
17:00:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/12-social-irc
17:00:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:00:35 <eprodrom> cwebber2, I added it
17:00:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:00:35 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start now
17:00:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:00:36 <trackbot> Date: 12 May 2015
17:01:01 <harry> To be precise, we are at least 6 months off re API
17:01:07 <aaronpk> Zakim: who is on the call?
17:01:08 <jasnell> fyi... I am on the call but I am currently at a conference. it's quite noisy so I'll be on mute and will comment via irc
17:01:13 <cwebber2> eprodrom: oh good!
17:01:18 <aaronpk> urgh zakim
17:01:22 <aaronpk> Zakim, who is on the call?
17:01:22 <Zakim> T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, aaronpk
17:01:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, jasnell, Zakim, eprodrom, tilgovi, jaywink, harry, Arnaud, elf-pavlik, bblfish, tessierashpool_, KevinMarks, slvrbckt, skddc, mattl, dwhly, bret, cwebber2,
17:01:24 <Zakim> ... wilkie, Loqi, tommorris_, ElijahLynn, rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, shepazu, oshepherd, deiu, aaronpk, kylewm, Tsyesika, JakeHart, bigbluehat, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer
17:01:36 <ben_thatmustbeme> Zakim, mute me
17:01:40 <Zakim> sorry, ben_thatmustbeme, I don't know what conference this is
17:01:46 <ben_thatmustbeme> what the?
17:01:54 <Arnaud> zakim, this is socl
17:01:54 <Zakim> ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
17:01:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> Zakim, mute me
17:01:59 <Zakim> ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted
17:02:48 <ben_thatmustbeme> we can hear the woodshop
17:03:05 <aaronpk> Zakim, aaaa is me
17:03:05 <Zakim> +aaronpk; got it
17:03:09 <aaronpk> Zakim, rhiaro is with me
17:03:09 <Zakim> +rhiaro; got it
17:03:13 <cwebber2> *erowwwww*
17:03:17 <eprodrom> Zakim, who is on the call?
17:03:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see eprodrom, aaronpk, jasnell, bblfish, Arnaud, cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme (muted), elf-pavlik (muted)
17:03:19 <Zakim> aaronpk has aaronpk, rhiaro
17:03:35 <aaronpk> Zakim, mute me
17:03:35 <Zakim> aaronpk should now be muted
17:03:45 <rhiaro> I'll scribe
17:04:01 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:04:06 <wilkie> Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:04:06 <Zakim> +wilkie; got it
17:04:11 <eprodrom> scribenick: rhiaro
17:04:20 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribe: rhiaro
17:04:38 <rhiaro> TOPIC: Approval of f2f minutes
17:04:51 <rhiaro> arnaud: did we approve the minutes of the call before?
17:04:56 <rhiaro> eprodrom: no, let's do that now
17:05:06 <rhiaro> ... 4/28
17:05:24 <rhiaro> ... adding to agenda
17:05:26 <elf-pavlik> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-21-minutes
17:05:28 <Zakim> +??P8
17:05:33 <Tsyesika> Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:05:33 <Zakim> +Tsyesika; got it
17:05:35 <rhiaro> ... comfortable to approve them, or wait to next week?
17:05:37 <Tsyesika> Zakim, mut eme
17:05:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mut eme', Tsyesika
17:05:38 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-28-minutes
17:05:41 <Tsyesika> Zakim, mute me
17:05:41 <Zakim> Tsyesika should now be muted
17:05:50 <ben_thatmustbeme> I think everyone has had 2 weeks now
17:05:52 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
17:05:55 <ben_thatmustbeme> I hink we can approve the minutes
17:06:07 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve minutes of 2015-04-28 telecon
17:06:10 <eprodrom> +1
17:06:12 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:06:12 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:06:13 <cwebber2> +1
17:06:15 <Tsyesika> +1
17:06:15 <rhiaro> +1
17:06:16 <aaronpk> +1
17:06:28 <wilkie> +1
17:06:38 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2015-04-28 telecon
17:07:21 <rhiaro> TOPIC: approval of 2f2 minutes
17:07:22 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-04-minutes
17:07:34 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve minutes of 2015-05-04 telecon
17:07:37 <rhiaro> ... Thanks to everyone who scribed
17:07:42 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:07:52 <rhiaro> +1
17:07:55 <cwebber2> +1
17:07:56 <eprodrom> eprodrom: +1
17:07:58 <rhiaro> ... Feel free to +0 or -1 if you need more time
17:08:05 <aaronpk> +1
17:08:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:08:28 <bblfish> +1 confident in rhiaro
17:08:44 <eprodrom> tantek, feel free to participate via IRC but jump on q if you want everyone to pay attention otherwise it's backchannel
17:08:52 <Arnaud> it's unfortunate that the resolutions aren't highlighted
17:08:52 <tantek> ok
17:09:02 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2015-05-04 telecon
17:09:08 <rhiaro> ... See no objections
17:09:14 <tantek> s/telecon/f2f
17:09:17 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2015-05-04 F2F2
17:09:23 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2015-05-04 F2F
17:09:39 <rhiaro> ... Next week's telecon is at normal time
17:10:02 <Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-12]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84090&oldid=84089
17:10:05 <eprodrom> tantek, are you able to chair next week?
17:10:06 <rhiaro> ... if tantek is available next week, we'd like him to chair
17:10:22 <harry> Could be done easily enough in wiki if someone has time
17:10:26 <rhiaro> ... regular call on 19th
17:10:31 <tantek> I'm at CSSWG f2f next Tue - unlikely to be able to chair
17:10:34 <rhiaro> TOPIC: Items in tracker
17:10:36 <eprodrom> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/open
17:10:44 <tantek> but can chair the week after that
17:10:52 <eprodrom> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/open
17:10:58 <aaronpk> thx for the link
17:11:11 <harry> How about Arnaud chairs next meeting?
17:11:13 <eprodrom> We'll figure that out
17:11:16 <elf-pavlik> q+ to mention finishing action-14 with sandro
17:11:40 <rhiaro> ... Let's discuss open actions and issues that we might be read to move forward with
17:11:45 <eprodrom> ack elf-pavlik
17:11:46 <elf-pavlik> action-14
17:11:47 <trackbot> action-14 -- Harry Halpin to Set up json-ld context for namespace -- due 2014-12-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:11:47 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention finishing action-14 with sandro
17:11:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/14
17:11:58 <jasnell> it's too noisy for me to speak
17:12:03 <jasnell> but I can update some status here
17:12:10 <rhiaro> elf-pavlik: after f2f we set up CORS headers with sandro for activitystreams
17:12:16 <rhiaro> ... so it works properly in playground etc
17:12:24 <jasnell> following the face to face last week I made a number of edits to the editor's drafts following the resolutions
17:12:31 <rhiaro> eprodrom: that means the context we have been using is valid?
17:12:52 <rhiaro> elf-pavlik: the one on the draft is served directly from w3c with correct CORS headers, so now you can take examples from the spec and use them in json-ld playground and they work properly
17:13:02 <jasnell> the version of the context located at the namespace URI is based on the most recent working draft, not the editor's draft
17:13:04 <rhiaro> eprodrom: thanks sandro and elf-pavlik for handling that
17:13:06 <jasnell> just worth noting
17:13:14 <eprodrom> ack jasnell
17:13:18 <jasnell> I can't speak, it's too noisy here
17:13:23 <jasnell> I can only type
17:13:41 <elf-pavlik> jasnell, let's discuss it after telecon?
17:13:45 <rhiaro> eprodrom: does that mean we need to revisit this action?
17:13:50 <jasnell> no, just need to update when we publish the next WD
17:14:06 <rhiaro> ... People who are implementing now should us ethe version in the WD
17:14:09 <jasnell> yes
17:14:15 <jasnell> but we should publish a new WD very soon
17:14:15 <elf-pavlik> q+ re: using lates editor draft via rawgit
17:14:16 <rhiaro> ... If you care about json-ld
17:14:20 <rhiaro> ... Thanks
17:14:36 <jasnell> let's put publishing a new WD on next weeks agenda. I can have it ready for review by friday
17:14:43 <rhiaro> ... If we have a new URI for the next version, can we start this process now so we dont' have this problem in the future?
17:14:49 <jasnell> didnt hear the question sorry
17:15:09 <tantek> does JSON-LD fail to handle redirects of context URIs?
17:15:11 <jasnell> yes likely
17:15:13 <rhiaro> ... so that when we got to WD it's already valid
17:15:13 <harry> General best practice is to use editors draft in most WGs
17:15:17 <jasnell> I'll work with Sando and Elf
17:15:29 <rhiaro> ... Shoudl we keep action 14 open or start a new action?
17:15:36 <jasnell> no preference on that
17:15:37 <tantek> having a stable context URI seems like a simple thing - is this really blocking AS2?
17:15:57 <eprodrom> ACTION jasnell work with Sandro and Elf Pavlik to set up new context URI
17:15:57 <trackbot> Error finding 'jasnell'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/users>.
17:16:04 <jasnell> my user id is jsnell
17:16:13 <eprodrom> ACTION jsnell work with Sandro and Elf Pavlik to set up new context URI
17:16:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-63 - Work with sandro and elf pavlik to set up new context uri [on James Snell - due 2015-05-19].
17:16:19 <elf-pavlik> q?
17:16:26 <rhiaro> ... Other issues and/or actions?
17:16:27 <elf-pavlik> q=
17:16:29 <elf-pavlik> q-
17:16:34 <jasnell> for AS2, we need to discuss the audience targeting
17:16:41 <jasnell> we deferred it from last week
17:17:01 <rhiaro> ... In previous telecons we've gone over raised issues, but that's been controversial. What I'd like to do is do that at the end of the agenda if we have time
17:17:03 <cwebber2> +1 on that approach
17:17:04 <rhiaro> ... Any objections?
17:17:07 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:17:22 <cwebber2> tantek: haha, yeah I didn't notice that
17:17:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:17:37 <aaronpk> q+ that was me
17:17:40 <rhiaro> TOPIC: Approving user stories
17:17:41 <tantek> any chance of picking a *social* term rather than marketing?
17:17:43 <harry> Updating context uri is trivial now we have its contents settled.
17:17:45 <aaronpk> Zakim:, unmute me
17:17:49 <aaronpk> Zakim, unmute me
17:17:49 <Zakim> aaronpk should no longer be muted
17:17:55 <cwebber2> tantek: http://www.millennialmedia.com/solutions/advertiser/targeting
17:18:03 <tantek> cwebber2: yeah, sad :(
17:18:10 <Loqi> it'll be ok
17:18:20 <rhiaro> aaronpk: I thought the IG was goign to be working on sorting through user stories more, but wasn't sure where that left off, and feels like it's stalled
17:18:33 <elf-pavlik> q+ re: IG and user stories
17:18:37 <rhiaro> ... Came up during the f2f that it seemed weird we had only 1 approved user story and that it was  complex one
17:18:42 <rhiaro> ... Want to make sure we get that moving again
17:18:53 <aaronpk> Zakim, mute me
17:18:53 <Zakim> aaronpk should now be muted
17:18:55 <tantek> SWAT0 is not complex - not from a user point of view.
17:19:19 <rhiaro> eprodrom: I felt like we reached a point with our user stories where we had the round of proposing them, had some discussion, then voted. And we kind of stalled at what does a vote/+/- mean?
17:19:25 <tantek> does everyone here know what SWAT0 stands for?
17:19:29 <harry> Seems obvious to approve all stories where we have consensus (no negatives)
17:19:30 <rhiaro> ... Ben did a fantastic job of sorting the user stories based on their level of support
17:19:31 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories
17:19:44 <rhiaro> ... I feel like that's probably as far as we need to go with this
17:19:45 <bblfish> SWAT0: Social Web Asid Test 0
17:20:02 <Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-12]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84091&oldid=84090
17:20:15 <rhiaro> ... Unless we need to dig down into minor or few objections
17:20:18 <tantek> "Acid Test" means it is testing a bunch of different things - it's supposed be non-trivial to implement
17:20:28 <tantek> based on long history of web related acid tests
17:20:29 <rhiaro> ... From my pov I'm happy taking the sorting that we have here and use that as our guide in evaluation
17:20:33 <jasnell> tantek: no no, audience targeting in this context has nothing to do with marketing
17:20:43 <bblfish> Q?
17:20:47 <aaronpk> q+q+
17:20:47 <rhiaro> ... But if we want to say everything that's positive or positive+neutral are our user stories, I'm fine with that
17:20:48 <Zakim> -Tsyesika
17:20:49 <eprodrom> ack elf-pavlik
17:20:50 <harry> See CSS acid test
17:20:51 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss IG and user stories
17:20:52 <tantek> jasnell: doesn't matter - the term invokes marketing, thus it's misleading
17:20:52 <elf-pavlik> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr/issues
17:20:53 <aaronpk> q+
17:21:03 <rhiaro> elf-pavlik: we started a repo on the IG for discussing issues around user stories that don't have full support
17:21:18 <rhiaro> ... I think we can continue with sorted list from top to bottom, whenever there's an issue we can createa  new issue
17:21:27 <eprodrom> q?
17:21:32 <rhiaro> ... We can publish notes so we have an official set of 20-25 user stories with stable URIs
17:21:42 <rhiaro> ... We can use them as references in implementations, and proposals for implementations
17:21:50 <tantek> why not start with fewer rather than more?
17:21:51 <rhiaro> ... As peopel tried to implement them there were some ambiguities found
17:22:00 <Zakim> +??P8
17:22:00 <rhiaro> ... So I encourage everyone to use this repo to file issues to clarify and approve user stories
17:22:01 <tantek> ^^ that's a good reason to start with fewer
17:22:03 <Tsyesika> Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:22:03 <Zakim> +Tsyesika; got it
17:22:04 <rhiaro> ... Then we have a document we can refer to
17:22:05 <eprodrom> q?
17:22:06 <Tsyesika> Zakim, mute me
17:22:07 <Zakim> Tsyesika should now be muted
17:22:09 <bblfish> makes sense to me
17:22:11 <eprodrom> q?
17:22:15 <aaronpk> ack aaronpk
17:22:17 <eprodrom> ack aaronpk
17:22:31 <rhiaro> aaronpk: I think it's important to have a set of approved stories just so otuside observers see more than one
17:22:33 <tantek> if you need simpler user stories to start implementing, start with the ones that were nearly all +1s
17:22:41 <rhiaro> ... This already came up at the f2f
17:22:47 <elf-pavlik> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories
17:22:51 <tantek> I think we should avoid or wait on user stories that are mostly 0s
17:22:52 <eprodrom> q?
17:22:55 <rhiaro> ... It would be valuable to approve some limited set that we all agree on them, not necessarilya ll of them
17:23:00 <rhiaro> ... Before we do that we need to resolve some of the ambiguity
17:23:04 <bblfish> q+
17:23:04 <rhiaro> eprodrom: another round of voting?
17:23:11 <tantek> I have the feeling that many folks voted 0 on stories they didn't want to oppose (out of politeness)
17:23:24 <rhiaro> ... One thing we could do is a proposal ..
17:23:25 <tantek> 0 = lack of strong interest
17:23:29 <tantek> so it shouldn't be "approved"
17:23:33 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: accept all user stories that are entirely positive or positive/neutral as official user stories
17:23:45 <tantek> -1 not strict enough
17:23:46 <rhiaro> aaronpk: I would be more comfortable with accepting all +1s to keep the list smaller for now
17:23:52 <rhiaro> eprodrom: why does it need to be smaller?
17:23:58 <tantek> see above
17:24:00 <rhiaro> aaronpk: going to take a long time to get everyone to agree on all the 0s
17:24:07 <rhiaro> ... a lot of people voted 0 ont hings they weren't sure about
17:24:12 <ben_thatmustbeme> q+
17:24:13 <tantek> right, that too
17:24:15 <rhiaro> eprodrom: +0 means I don't care, it does not matter
17:24:22 <jasnell> I'd agree with that. For the initial round, let's approve the ones that are only +1, then revisit the ones with 0's to see
17:24:25 <rhiaro> ... 'I do not object'
17:24:26 <elf-pavlik> eprodrom, let's start with all positive and next telecon we can try adding those with netural
17:24:32 <jasnell> the ones with all +1's are no brainers
17:24:35 <rhiaro> ... I would rather have all positives in
17:24:40 <tantek> the f2f proved that user stories have ambiguities that need resolution, and only by going through them as implementers can they be resolved
17:24:43 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: accept all user stories that are entirely positive as official user stories
17:24:46 <tantek> thus fewer is better
17:24:46 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:24:56 <eprodrom> tantek, strong disagreement there
17:24:57 <tantek> URL?
17:24:58 <jasnell> define "entirely positive" please
17:25:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:25:06 <elf-pavlik> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories
17:25:12 <aaronpk> jasnell: stories with only +1 votes
17:25:19 <rhiaro> ... fewer is better but I believe that we have a job to do and just trying to artificially reduce it to fewer I disagree with
17:25:19 <tantek> more specifically: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories#Entirely_Positive
17:25:22 <elf-pavlik> 7 stories + SWAT0
17:25:28 <jasnell> with that definition, +1
17:25:32 <eprodrom> q?
17:25:35 <rhiaro> ... Accept all entirely positive, and then further reivew sorted list
17:25:42 <rhiaro> aaronpk: my only hesitation is ambiguities in the way they were written
17:25:43 <harry> +1
17:25:45 <rhiaro> ... Dont' know the right way to resolve these
17:25:49 <rhiaro> ... They're minor
17:25:52 <elf-pavlik> q+ re: resovling ambiguities
17:25:53 <cwebber2> +1
17:25:58 <rhiaro> ... Could just be askign writer of stories their intent
17:26:00 <harry> Zakim, code?
17:26:00 <Zakim> the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry
17:26:00 <cwebber2> aaronpk: raise them on-list maybe?
17:26:02 <jasnell> for the ones with 0, it would be helpful to understand why they are 0
17:26:04 <rhiaro> eprodrom: which ones do you want to resolve?
17:26:07 <tantek> problem is difference of methodologies: incremental, vs. take on too much, never get anything done
17:26:07 <cwebber2> and we can get agreements and then edits to the wiki?
17:26:15 <rhiaro> aaronpk: I think only two places I had a question
17:26:17 <elf-pavlik> aaronpk, please use https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr/issues
17:26:34 <jasnell> it's not useful to officially stamp a user story that very few people have interest implementing
17:26:36 <rhiaro> ... okay to do this right now?
17:26:39 <rhiaro> eprodrom: proposal first
17:26:43 <jasnell> even if they don't have objections to the user story itself
17:26:46 <elf-pavlik> q-
17:26:51 <aaronpk> +1
17:26:54 <eprodrom> ack bblfish
17:27:24 <rhiaro> bblfish: In the f2f we had a number of stories that revealed strenghts of different ways of doing things
17:27:33 <tantek> jasnell + 1 for "it's not useful to officially stamp a user story that very few people have interest implementing"
17:27:35 <rhiaro> ... some of the -1s were comments such as 'something cannot be done' or is 'too difficult'
17:27:43 <aaronpk> agreed with jasnell there
17:27:46 <harry> Maybe just aim for ones with majority +1?
17:28:01 <tantek> why not approve only a few for now?
17:28:05 <tantek> what's the rush?
17:28:07 <tantek> we can approve more later
17:28:12 <aaronpk> current proposal is the 7 that are only +1 votes which seems like a good start
17:28:13 <rhiaro> ... one way of reducing stories is, for example in the meeting peopel wrote up stories in detail using their protocols. That helps reduce stories a lot, we had only 4/5/6 written up, it's a lot of work
17:28:20 <rhiaro> ... When one writes them up like this one realises implications
17:28:31 <rhiaro> ... Getting entirely positives seems reasonable
17:28:34 <tantek> there should be a bit of an implementation challenge, if you can't make progress on SWAT0 and the first 7 user stories, then you shouldn't be advocating for MORE user stories :P
17:28:41 <harry> Yep, approve the all +1s now, more later if needed
17:28:43 <aaronpk> i think the rest of them need to be gone through like a few of us did before the f2f before we can accept more use stories
17:28:45 <tantek> let's raise the bar here
17:28:47 <rhiaro> eprodrom: proposal right now is to approve entirely positives as 'official'
17:28:49 <eprodrom> q?
17:28:52 <ben_thatmustbeme> q-
17:28:54 <tantek> make it based on progress, rather than politics
17:29:03 <rhiaro> ... So we have some working through of the rest to do?
17:29:21 <eprodrom> ack ben_thatmustbeme
17:29:31 <tantek> and if no one bothers to go through the remaining user stories to clarify or attempt implementing, then clearly there is insufficient interest to accept them.
17:29:39 <tantek> vote with your code
17:29:48 <rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: the entirely +1 and some 0 are really minor minor point that could be corrected with a couple of lines
17:30:00 <rhiaro> ... but I would not want to make them officially approved until we've got the *best* wording we all agree on
17:30:07 <tantek> yes the "some 0 are really minor minor point that could be corrected with a couple of lines" was what the IG was supposed to drive to resolution
17:30:12 <rhiaro> ... it's not that people were saying they weren't planning on implementing, but that they were good with minor quibbles
17:30:14 <tantek> have heard anything back from the IG about that?
17:30:17 <rhiaro> eprodrom: I'm not sure what the resolution fo a 0 is
17:30:21 <bblfish> +1
17:30:21 <tantek> has the IG resolved any of the 0s on any of the user stories?
17:30:34 <rhiaro> ... do we try to make someone care about them? Do we push them to commit in one way or another?
17:30:52 <rhiaro> ... I would like to leave it open, maybe one way we can progress is to approve the top ones
17:30:57 <rhiaro> ... ask everyoen to re-review user stories
17:31:02 <elf-pavlik> sounds good!
17:31:06 <rhiaro> ... and next week propose approving the next group
17:31:09 <rhiaro> ... sound reasonable?
17:31:13 <tantek> e.g. a resolution could be via a github issue regarding the "0", discussion on that issue, and determining either the flaw in the user story, or a clarification / reduction in scope that would turn the "0" into a "1".
17:31:22 <ben_thatmustbeme> Zakim, mute me
17:31:22 <Zakim> ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted
17:31:25 <eprodrom> +1
17:31:26 <rhiaro> votes please
17:31:27 <cwebber2> +1
17:31:29 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:31:29 <rhiaro> +1
17:31:30 <jasnell> +1
17:31:31 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:31:31 <Tsyesika> +1
17:31:32 <aaronpk> +1
17:31:36 <tantek> where's the proposal?
17:31:43 <bblfish> so the action is to look at the next batch next week
17:31:46 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: accept all user stories that are entirely positive as official user stories
17:31:54 <tantek> +1
17:32:02 <aaronpk> as linked here https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories#Entirely_Positive
17:32:08 <jasnell> with an action on everyone to review that next batch and determine if the 0 votes can made explicitly -1 or +1
17:32:17 <elf-pavlik> q+ to remind clarification workflow
17:32:22 <bblfish> Btw. +0 means - there were 70 user stories, and this did not look like I could be bothered about it
17:32:22 <eprodrom> ack elf-pavlik
17:32:24 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to remind clarification workflow
17:32:26 <elf-pavlik> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr/issues
17:32:28 <tantek> for the others, I'd rather not waste time discussing them on telcon until efforts have been made async to resolve the 0s
17:32:30 <jasnell> I would argue that, if someone is +-0 to a user story, they really ought to be -1 on making it an official user story
17:32:37 <tantek> e.g. push those back to the IG
17:32:37 <rhiaro> elf-pavlik: in IG we're using this github repo to discuss clarifications, changes etc
17:32:45 <tantek> jasnell is right
17:32:49 <rhiaro> ... I would like everyone to use repo to clarify ambiguities
17:32:57 <rhiaro> ... before next week discuss those that have 0s
17:33:02 <bblfish> elf-pavlik: can you put a link to this in the right place? Perahps on the front page of the WG - if it is not already there
17:33:04 <Zakim> -Arnaud
17:33:04 <rhiaro> ... I think this is the best place to discuss for everyone
17:33:06 <Zakim> +harry
17:33:06 <tantek> why "before next week" ?
17:33:13 <tantek> who is pressuing this rush?
17:33:16 <rhiaro> eprodrom: we're goign to try to do this next week
17:33:20 <Arnaud> shoot.. lost phone connection
17:33:21 <tantek> why?
17:33:24 <wilkie> yeah, just focus on the +1 user stories. that doesn't mean implementations can't do those and also some of the +0s too
17:33:28 <eprodrom> tantek, can you join the queue if this is normative discussion?
17:33:31 <tantek> what wilkie said
17:33:35 <eprodrom> Or just backchannel?
17:33:48 <elf-pavlik> q?
17:33:50 <eprodrom> q?
17:33:57 <tantek> q+ to say no need to rush evaluation of remaining user stories, that's the IGs job to process
17:34:03 <eprodrom> Again, I'll assume that if you're not on the queue, typing in IRC is just backchannel
17:34:04 <rhiaro> eprodrom: I'm assuming if you're typing in IRC it's just backchannel if you're nt on q
17:34:09 <eprodrom> ack tantek
17:34:09 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say no need to rush evaluation of remaining user stories, that's the IGs job to process
17:34:17 <ben_thatmustbeme> Zakim, unmute me
17:34:17 <Zakim> ben_thatmustbeme should no longer be muted
17:34:36 <tantek> and if anyone wants to push a particular user story, build it, and do a walk through as folks did for the f2f
17:34:43 <tantek> those were very useful writeups
17:34:44 <rhiaro> eprodrom: we just had a vote
17:34:49 <elf-pavlik> +1 tantek
17:34:55 <tantek> no need to waste telcon time on this
17:35:03 <rhiaro> ... we did have the voting and writeup process
17:35:03 <aaronpk> q+ to support the build/walkthrough of user stories before we approve any more
17:35:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> Zakim, mute me
17:35:05 <Zakim> ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted
17:35:05 <rhiaro> ... I'd rather not ignore them
17:35:07 <tantek> everyone can pursue making user stories work that they think are interesting
17:35:15 <rhiaro> ... Lots of them are very good
17:35:16 <tantek> no need to waste everyone's time on mostly "0" stories
17:35:19 <tantek> or worse
17:35:34 <rhiaro> ... That is discussion for next week
17:35:37 <Zakim> +Arnaud
17:35:39 <tantek> it's only ignoring if no one codes them
17:35:40 <eprodrom> tantek, That's a discussion for next week, unless you wantt to explicitly say that these aren't in bounds at all
17:35:42 <tantek> or no one writes them up
17:35:48 <tantek> the way people did for the f2f
17:35:51 <eprodrom> tantek, they are all written up
17:36:01 <eprodrom> And all got +1s and some 0s
17:36:07 <tantek> no they're not
17:36:09 <tantek> not like at the f2f
17:36:10 <tantek> that's the point
17:36:10 <tantek> that's how progress was made at the f2f
17:36:27 <rhiaro> eprodrom: We just decied to approve these
17:36:31 <tantek> if you care about a user story, do a write up of how your implementation does it, the way aaronpk and others did for the f2f
17:36:36 <tantek> no need for the group to discuss that
17:36:45 <rhiaro> ... We just made a decision based on the votes
17:36:49 <tantek> and if no one does any such write-ups then that indicates people don't care about a user story
17:36:59 <aaronpk> q?
17:36:59 <rhiaro> ... we had all +1s
17:37:03 <eprodrom> q?
17:37:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> RESOLVED: accept all user stories that are entirely positive as official user stories
17:37:06 <eprodrom> ack aaronpk
17:37:06 <Zakim> aaronpk, you wanted to support the build/walkthrough of user stories before we approve any more
17:37:15 <rhiaro> RESOLVED: approve all +1 user stories
17:37:18 <jasnell> for the batch that just got approved, an action should be taken to write up additional detail for each, make sure they are clear
17:37:24 <Zakim> -Tsyesika
17:37:28 <tantek> and yes we should IGNORE any user stories that no one wants to put the energy into implementing or clarifying
17:37:32 <tantek> that's a very good filter
17:37:36 <rhiaro> aaronpk: For any *more* user stories I'm not compfortable approving them if there are any 0s *unless* someone has done a protocol writeup or built it
17:37:53 <rhiaro> ... Doing that myself gave me a much better understanding of the details of the stories, in a way I did not get when I read it the first time and voted +1
17:38:03 <elf-pavlik> +1 aaronpk
17:38:04 <rhiaro> ... So even though I voted +1 on some I did not have the understanding of them until after I did the writeup
17:38:09 <jasnell> +1 aaronpk
17:38:10 <tantek> I'll note that this includes a few user stories that I myself proposed. So it's tough work for everyone.
17:38:13 <cwebber2> not for all of them
17:38:17 <rhiaro> eprodrom: I want to confirm, did we have writes ups for all with +1s?
17:38:19 <Zakim> +??P8
17:38:24 <rhiaro> aaronpk: no, only 3 or 4 of them
17:38:24 <Tsyesika> Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:38:24 <Zakim> +Tsyesika; got it
17:38:28 <Tsyesika> Zakim, mute me
17:38:28 <Zakim> Tsyesika should now be muted
17:38:30 <cwebber2> I do agree with aaronpk that doing the mapping write-up does help clarify a lot
17:38:39 <rhiaro> eprodrom: so we just confirmed some that weren't written up
17:38:45 <jasnell> let's propose an action to require a write up for all of the just approved user stories
17:38:56 <tantek> eprodrom, because the others all have doubts
17:39:02 <rhiaro> ... if that's the bar we want to set that's fine, but we *already* wrote them up and voted, so seems kind of high
17:39:06 <elf-pavlik> q+
17:39:06 <jasnell> note, we can have another vote to remove a user story from the list if it becomes obvious that no one intends to implement it
17:39:07 <tantek> existence of doubts = higher burden of approval
17:39:11 <rhiaro> aaronpk: the reason I'm hesitant is because for all the rest somebody had a doubt
17:39:12 <ben_thatmustbeme> q+
17:39:15 <cwebber2> q+
17:39:20 <rhiaro> eprodrom: 0 represents don't care, not doubt
17:39:29 <rhiaro> ... these are ones everyone was positive or neutral on
17:39:37 <rhiaro> ... Not sure writeups are a good way to spend our time
17:39:43 <tantek> we learned from the protocol walk through s that "*already* wrote them up and voted" is insufficient eprodrom
17:39:50 <rhiaro> ... Next item on agenda
17:39:50 <ben_thatmustbeme> q-
17:39:52 <elf-pavlik> q-
17:39:55 <tantek> that's the point - we got that out of the f2f
17:40:01 <jasnell> some level of expanded detail is going to be the only way we can verify that we've actually met the case
17:40:02 <aaronpk> Zakim, mute me
17:40:02 <Zakim> aaronpk should now be muted
17:40:07 <rhiaro> TOPIC: Starting work on a brainstorming a joint Social API FPWD
17:40:07 <tantek> since we have learned that, we shouldn't blindly go by what we thought we knew before
17:40:11 <cwebber2> aaronpk: effectively not everything is going to get impmlemented from the user stories, maybe we should be doing more refinement as we go through implementation?
17:40:14 <rhiaro> eprodrom: harry can you say something?
17:40:17 <elf-pavlik> tantek, aaronpk you can simply warn people that you will -1 stories which don't have implementation walk through
17:40:21 <eprodrom> harry, ?
17:40:28 <cwebber2> ie, maybe the list we have is a good list that's mostly sorted, and as we implement we can come back and possibly challenge some of them
17:40:30 <Zakim> -harry
17:40:38 <cwebber2> and find which ones we've hit a union of implementation in between our implementations
17:40:41 <ben_thatmustbeme> note btw, that 0s did not represent don't care much of the time.... they would often have commentary explaining it
17:40:47 <rhiaro> ... I'll try to address this while we wait for harry
17:40:51 <Zakim> +harry
17:40:52 <tantek> cwebber2, yes, I agree with incremental progress based on implementation demand, not basd on "next telcon"
17:40:58 <aaronpk> cwebber2: +1 for incremental progress!
17:41:01 <rhiaro> ... harry go ahead
17:41:21 <rhiaro> eprodrom: giving up on harry
17:41:41 <bblfish> harry has telecommunication problems
17:41:44 <rhiaro> ... harry proposed in order for us to get to FPWD for the API would be to develop a joint draft basedon 3 candidates
17:41:48 <rhiaro> ... and neutral editors
17:41:54 <rhiaro> ... idea was to come up with opinions on that
17:42:08 <rhiaro> ... one thing we could do today is have a resolution of deciding that's a way we can go forward
17:42:09 <eprodrom> q?
17:42:14 <cwebber2> -q
17:42:16 <rhiaro> ... wold like to open up for discussion
17:42:17 <cwebber2> nope
17:42:32 <cwebber2> though maybe I will be, but I want to understand the topic better :)
17:42:40 <rhiaro> ... idea is to have a consensus FPWD
17:42:50 <cwebber2> is this for an intersection of the implementations, or?
17:43:01 <Zakim> -harry
17:43:02 <cwebber2> sure
17:43:03 <cwebber2> +q
17:43:08 <eprodrom> ack cwebber2
17:43:15 <eprodrom> ack cwebber
17:43:35 <cwebber2> oh
17:43:38 <cwebber2> I accidentally hung up
17:43:39 <bblfish> no can't hear cwebber2
17:43:40 <Tsyesika> i can't hear him either
17:43:53 <rhiaro> cwebber2 yes
17:43:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> yes
17:44:21 <rhiaro> cwebber2: is this an intersection of the implementations? Seems like this is coming off the end of the f2f where it seemed liek there was optimism that there is convergence?
17:44:25 <rhiaro> ... Is that what we're talking about?
17:44:34 <rhiaro> eprodrom: yes, idea to come up with a FPWD basedon that work
17:44:47 <cwebber2> heh :)
17:44:48 <cwebber2> sorry :)
17:45:00 <tantek> note that optimism that there is convergence != convergence itself
17:45:02 <rhiaro> ... and that we would have 'neutral' editors, not implying we're not working to same goal
17:45:09 <tantek> better to continue with optimism and separate iteration
17:45:11 <rhiaro> ... I like this concept, I"m not thrilled with a strict intersection
17:45:13 <tantek> rather than jump to conclusions prematurely
17:45:16 <cwebber2> +q
17:45:21 <tantek> I think what we have now is "working"
17:45:23 <rhiaro> ... at this point that would be 'use http'
17:45:25 <tantek> so let's not mess with it for now
17:45:27 <bblfish> q?
17:45:29 <bblfish> Q+
17:45:36 <rhiaro> ... but maybe some kind of resolution of the three proposals
17:45:39 <cwebber2> this is new
17:45:41 <tantek> in the hopes that we see *more* incremental convergence
17:45:41 <eprodrom> ack cwebber
17:45:49 <elf-pavlik> q+
17:45:50 <jasnell> one document, three sections, one for each proposal. should be straightforward
17:45:52 <bblfish> do we have two cwebber's?
17:45:59 <jasnell> then we can work on consolidating
17:46:07 <tantek> rather than prematurely forcing some form of hybrid mess
17:46:09 <tantek> jasnell - sorry to say but that's a horrible idea
17:46:10 <rhiaro> cwebber2: having talked to tsyesika and rhiaro after last f2f and both seemed very optimistic that there was a lot of opportunity for intersection
17:46:32 <rhiaro> ... I do agree with evan that with the current state of proposals we don't have a lot of intersection, but seemed liek a lot of optimism from aaronpk rhiaro and tsyesika and also sandro
17:46:34 <tantek> if there's so much opportunity for iteration and convergence, let each draft do so independently
17:46:38 <tantek> and at its own pace
17:46:39 <rhiaro> ... that there is a triange of overlap
17:46:48 <rhiaro> ... I think what might be interesting is to see more technical overlap and prove that this can happen
17:46:49 <tantek> let separate documents copy each other at will
17:46:55 <tantek> rather than forcing anything into one document
17:47:13 <jasnell> separate docs works fine too. I don't really care so long as something get's written down that we can start iterating on
17:47:19 <tantek> premature/forced convergence is the fastest way to kill the progress we're making
17:47:21 <rhiaro> ... I'd rather not get stuck forever trying to figure out the intersection, but would like opportunity to see if that could happen
17:47:30 <rhiaro> ... don't want it to hold us up from implementation for too long
17:47:46 <ben_thatmustbeme> i would agree with tantek, start with sepearte versions.  maybe keep an idea toward future convergance
17:47:51 <tantek> there is no "hold us up from implementati
17:47:51 <rhiaro> ... proposal would be for the members who felt like they were hitting convergence could write up, and show we're all on the same page
17:48:11 <rhiaro> ... I wonder how much could be done over the enxt couple of weeks to try to hit that convergence, so we have a sensible timeline and have this opportunity to progress this?
17:48:12 <eprodrom> q?
17:48:16 <eprodrom> ack bblfish
17:48:21 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
17:48:21 <rhiaro> bblfish: I agree with that
17:48:29 <rhiaro> ... There should be proposals for development
17:48:45 <rhiaro> ... We should keep in mind we need to finish this, so we should see how many existing specs we can use so we reinvent as little as possible
17:48:48 <rhiaro> ... I'm happy to put forward some convergence ideas
17:49:09 <tantek> if you're spec-ing without implementing, you're likely doing something wrong
17:49:11 <rhiaro> eprodrom: from the mailing list harry proposed a group come together to work on a document
17:49:18 <rhiaro> ... aaronpk, rhiaro and tsyesika agreed
17:49:24 <rhiaro> ... there was a quesiton on who would step up from SoLiD
17:49:28 <aaronpk> can't we spec while implementing?
17:49:37 <rhiaro> ... wold you step up?
17:49:42 <rhiaro> bblfish: I'm trying to do all kinds of things
17:49:47 <rhiaro> ... We can line up things in a sketchy way
17:49:59 <rhiaro> ... To see what fits without going all the way to writing a document
17:50:04 <rhiaro> ... like agile programming
17:50:21 <rhiaro> ... we need to know where we're going, which parts look like they fit together and identify those then have discussions around that, to go forward
17:50:30 <eprodrom> q?
17:50:37 <eprodrom> ack elf-pavlik
17:50:50 <tantek> note that micropub, microformats, webmention etc. were all simultaneously spec'd and implemented - that kind of back/forth iteration keeps thing real and minimal
17:50:55 <tantek> instead of academic and bloated
17:51:03 <elf-pavlik> q+
17:51:17 <rhiaro> harry: I was thinking that we grab three people, one from each proposal and a neutral editor, and over next week peopel can learn respec
17:51:18 <jasnell> I can offer help with respec also
17:51:30 <rhiaro> ... we can start a sketchy document on common points of convergence
17:51:34 <rhiaro> ... so we have something to start working on
17:51:41 <rhiaro> ... It's good to push forward
17:51:45 <Arnaud> we haven't heard back from sandro
17:52:07 <rhiaro> eprodrom: main objections are worry that we put together a frankenstein monstor of incompatible features
17:52:14 <rhiaro> ... I'm concerned an intersection would not be very complete
17:52:15 <bblfish> q+
17:52:19 <Tsyesika> it might be a good base to build off though?
17:52:22 <rhiaro> ... What's next steps for document after it's written?
17:52:24 <eprodrom> q?
17:52:34 <rhiaro> harry: we should try intersection, then see if we get convergence as we move outwards witha pproved user stories
17:52:51 <rhiaro> ... if we make progress in a couple of months we can try to get consensus on (??) level
17:52:59 <rhiaro> ... we can get implementations, and revisit strong and weak points with editors
17:53:09 <eprodrom> q?
17:53:13 <rhiaro> ... and help from other people on github
17:53:17 <ben_thatmustbeme> Zakim, mute me
17:53:17 <Zakim> ben_thatmustbeme was already muted, ben_thatmustbeme
17:53:23 <eprodrom> ack elf-pavlik
17:53:26 <rhiaro> eprodrom: will put a proposal up
17:53:44 <rhiaro> harry: also depends on free time of editors, to find people who have time to commit to work on the document
17:54:06 <rhiaro> elf-pavlik: having this attempt to find convergence doesn't limit other people to develop their specs independantly
17:54:16 <rhiaro> ... if someone was looking for common ground this is a great idea I will support and participate in
17:54:24 <rhiaro> ... if people want to put more time independantly to develop their spec there is still space for that
17:54:30 <rhiaro> ... I don't think those efforts exclude ach other
17:54:41 <rhiaro> ... I would prioritise implementing things we already all agree on
17:54:59 <rhiaro> ... everyone voluntarily contributes, if editors of other specs can dedicate time to look for convergence that's great
17:55:08 <eprodrom> q?
17:55:09 <rhiaro> harry: the point is to start with making it clear what we already agree on
17:55:12 <eprodrom> ack bblfish
17:55:22 <elf-pavlik> +1 harry
17:55:40 <rhiaro> bblfish: perhaps we can also work out points of converance on mailing list so we get feedback from group about what makes sense
17:55:55 <rhiaro> ... we can have a thread on the list for finding points of convergence
17:56:08 <rhiaro> ... think about two things that could go together, and people can push back if they know what works
17:56:12 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: aaronpk, Tsyesika, and sandro to work with rhiaro to develop a convergence document
17:56:17 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:56:26 <rhiaro> eprodrom: should we put a timebox on this document
17:56:37 <rhiaro> ... four weeks from now?
17:56:47 <tantek> -1
17:56:50 <rhiaro> harry: I'd say see how it goes.  A few weeks for a first draft. Would like to see something solid in 2 months
17:56:54 <cwebber2> can we try to push for some actual objectives
17:56:55 <jasnell> +0.5 ... don't think it needs to be one document but as long as *something* get's written down
17:57:02 <cwebber2> again, I think a minimal objective could be "common format"
17:57:06 <aaronpk> to be clear, this is not a proposal about writing the converged spec, right?
17:57:08 <cwebber2> to be posted between instances
17:57:14 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: aaronpk, Tsyesika, and sandro to work with rhiaro to develop a convergence document with first draft by 9 June
17:57:28 <cwebber2> +1
17:57:30 <rhiaro> eprodrom: this is about writing a convergance document
17:57:31 <tantek> -1 we're not going to make progress by forcing converged documents with artificial dates
17:57:32 <Arnaud> again, we haven't heard from sandro, have we?
17:57:32 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:57:34 <bblfish> +1
17:57:35 <aaronpk> can you please define "convergence document"?
17:57:40 <Tsyesika> +1
17:58:04 <tantek> counter proposal is to keep iterating the documents separately
17:58:10 <elf-pavlik> Bearer token
17:58:12 <elf-pavlik> follow your nose
17:58:12 <jasnell> absolutely disagree tantek: having *something* written down is better than having nothing written down. it gives us a starting point.
17:58:13 <rhiaro> harry: systematically going through common points, what vocabulary we can agree on
17:58:13 <elf-pavlik> etlc.
17:58:14 <cwebber2> aaronpk: Tsyesika: maybe you should help agree on what you think a helpful convergence doc would be
17:58:16 <tantek> and encourage re-use of ideas back/forth
17:58:19 <rhiaro> ... probably minimal in beginning, then we can stretch it out
17:58:20 <eprodrom> +1
17:58:26 <Tsyesika> cwebber2: more or less what harry just said
17:58:28 <cwebber2> +1
17:58:30 <cwebber2> okay great
17:58:31 <Tsyesika> +1
17:58:34 <rhiaro> +1
17:58:36 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek, that was discussed.  this doesn't prevent seperate spec dev.
17:58:37 <tantek> let convergence happen naturally, not by force of committee
17:58:46 <aaronpk> +1 to get *something* written down for review by people
17:58:46 <Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 72 karma
17:58:50 <tantek> then don't call it "a convergance document"
17:58:52 <eprodrom> tantek, can you take the floor and make this case
17:58:55 <rhiaro> eprodrom: can you make the case for -1
17:59:19 <rhiaro> ... also, the people who are named in this proposal, could you speak up about working on this doc even if this propoasl doesn't go through?
17:59:24 <rhiaro> ... tantek?
17:59:34 <rhiaro> ... can you expand on your -1?
17:59:38 <tantek> q+ to say "a convergance document" is the absolute wrong framing and premature risks the progress we've made. Instead encourage rapid iteration of separate documents (what we're already doing) and borrowing/sharing of ideas.
17:59:51 <rhiaro> eprodrom: we have 3/4 peopel who want to work on this document
17:59:57 <cwebber2> tantek: I think we're still planning on doing that
18:00:02 <eprodrom> ack tantek
18:00:02 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say "a convergance document" is the absolute wrong framing and premature risks the progress we've made. Instead encourage rapid iteration of separate
18:00:05 <Zakim> ... documents (what we're already doing) and borrowing/sharing of ideas.
18:00:28 <jasnell> fine, don't call it a "convergence document"... call it "an initial bunch of ideas written down that we can start iterating on"
18:00:39 <tantek> cwebber2, then do just the independent iteration - there's no rush for a convergence document
18:00:39 <eprodrom> tantek, counterproposal?
18:00:41 <rhiaro> eprodrom: counter proposal?
18:00:43 <tantek> above
18:00:47 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:00:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see eprodrom, aaronpk (muted), jasnell, bblfish, cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme (muted), elf-pavlik (muted), wilkie, Arnaud, Tsyesika (muted)
18:00:51 <Zakim> aaronpk has aaronpk, rhiaro
18:01:00 <Arnaud> sandro isn't on the call
18:01:05 <eprodrom> tantek, can you phrase it as a proposal?
18:01:09 <tantek> counter PROPOSAL: encourage rapid iteration of separate documents (what we're already doing) and borrowing/sharing of ideas. let convergence happen naturally, not by force of committee.
18:01:10 <rhiaro> ... tantek, can you phrase as proposal please?
18:01:23 <rhiaro> tantek, I think that's how it would happen anyway
18:01:25 <ben_thatmustbeme> I think it is useful to list out the places where we are making convergance, thats is really all we are talking about
18:01:28 <aaronpk> I do want to get something written down working with Tsyesika rhiaro and sandro
18:01:30 <elf-pavlik> we can +1 both, they don't exclude each other
18:01:36 <rhiaro> eprodrom: this isn't an either/or
18:01:43 <tantek> rhiaro: if that's how it would happen anyway then no reason to VOTE on something additional
18:01:43 <aaronpk> just so that these ideas after the f2f are not only in our heads
18:01:48 <rhiaro> harry: I do expect that the three separate documents would continue iterating
18:01:55 <tantek> rhiaro, you just justified a -1 vote for eprodrom proposal
18:01:56 <rhiaro> ... be good to record convergence
18:01:58 <bblfish> agree this does not seem to be an either or
18:02:04 <bblfish> so we could all +1 both
18:02:04 <cwebber2> yes, and I intend to move into implementation phase anyway
18:02:07 <cwebber2> on the activitypump document
18:02:10 <jasnell> Proposal: let's not worry on exactly how many documents are actually written and focus on just getthing *something* written
18:02:20 <cwebber2> so I don't think they're totally at odds
18:02:27 <rhiaro> tantek, then I +1 both
18:02:28 <tantek> jasnell, something *has* been written
18:02:36 <cwebber2> +1 to both :)
18:02:40 <elf-pavlik> +1 both
18:02:41 <tantek> that's the point - let's not get distracted by an academic convergence document
18:02:44 <rhiaro> eprodrom: vote on tantek and jasnell's proposals?
18:02:53 <eprodrom> -1 to tantek, +1 to jasnell
18:03:02 <rhiaro> +1 to just getting things done
18:03:05 <bblfish> +1 to tantek, +1 to jasnell
18:03:22 <tantek> +1 to just keep getting things done
18:03:31 <aaronpk> +1 to just keep shipping shipping shipping
18:03:36 <Tsyesika> +1 getting things done is good
18:03:43 <cwebber2> I'm confused as to what some of those votes are
18:03:47 <ben_thatmustbeme> this is getting really abiguous
18:04:00 <rhiaro> harry: we *are* supposed to converge on a spec eventually
18:04:00 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: let's not worry on exactly how many documents are actually written and focus on just getthing *something* written
18:04:11 <Tsyesika> mhm
18:04:13 <rhiaro> I'm +1 for writing a document about convergence of apis
18:04:20 <elf-pavlik> +1 rhiaro
18:04:22 <rhiaro> ... so we'll just get some documents written
18:04:24 <aaronpk> !meme just keep shipping shipping shipping [http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news_img/38938/Finding_Dory_38938.jpg]
18:04:26 <Loqi> http://meme.loqi.me/4b71h28S.jpg
18:04:31 <ben_thatmustbeme> thats the oddest resolution i have seen
18:04:36 <rhiaro> ... I'd like to ask tsyesika, aaronpk, rhiaro and sandro to work on a document if you'd like to do so
18:04:38 <bblfish> :D
18:04:39 <cwebber2> plus one on good things are good
18:04:42 <eprodrom> Yeah, I don't feel like it says much
18:04:48 <Tsyesika> cwebber2: indeed :)
18:04:54 <elf-pavlik> ciao all o/ thanks eprodrom for chairing and rhiaro for scribing
18:04:57 <cwebber2> http://www.theonion.com/article/john-edwards-vows-to-end-all-bad-things-by-2011-2235
18:04:58 <bblfish> well it seems its ok to get a convergence document going, since it's a document
18:05:06 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
18:05:34 <cwebber2> hm we need to end the call right?  how to do that again?
18:05:43 <eprodrom> cwebber2, I'll do it
18:05:44 <bblfish> I think when everyone leaves
18:05:59 <eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting
18:05:59 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
18:05:59 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been eprodrom, +1.503.278.aaaa, jasnell, bblfish, Arnaud, cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme, elf-pavlik, aaronpk, rhiaro, wilkie, Tsyesika, harry
18:06:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:06:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/12-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:06:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
18:06:08 <RRSAgent> I see no action items