17:01:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
17:01:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/07/28-social-irc
17:01:35 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
17:01:39 <sandro> trackbot, start meeting
17:01:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:01:43 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:01:43 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:01:44 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:01:44 <trackbot> Date: 28 July 2015
17:01:44 <tantek> trackbot, start meeting
17:01:45 <KevinMarks> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28 says no more Zakim
17:01:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:01:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:01:48 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:01:49 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:01:49 <trackbot> Date: 28 July 2015
17:02:05 <jasnell_> present+ jasnell
17:02:06 <aaronpk> present+ aaronpk
17:02:11 <sandro> We still have the zakimbot for queue management
17:02:19 <tantek> q?
17:02:20 <KevinMarks> present+ kevinmarks
17:02:20 <sandro> fwiw
17:02:23 <Arnaud> present+ Arnaud
17:02:28 <sandro> present+ Sandro
17:02:38 <tantek> present?
17:02:49 <rhiaro_> present+ rhiaro
17:02:53 <ShaneHudson> present+ ShaneHudson
17:02:56 <sandro> ummm
17:03:02 <aaronpk> i thought present+ was just for the logs
17:03:03 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
17:03:03 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is
17:03:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, tilgovi, ShaneHudson, tantek, akuckartz, KevinMarks, jasnell, melvster, wilkie, shepazu, Arnaud, JakeHart, mattl, bret, tommorris_, dwhly, ElijahLynn,
17:03:04 <Zakim> ... tessierashpool_, slvrbckt, bigbluehat, rhiaro_, raucao, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber2, tsyesika, Loqi, sandro, trackbot, aaronpk, oshepherd, wseltzer
17:03:08 <sandro> nope.
17:03:15 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+ ben_thatmustbeme
17:03:21 <sandro> zakim, who is present?
17:03:21 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, sandro.
17:03:30 <ShaneHudson> Yeah I'm muted, can hear you fine
17:03:56 <aaronpk> i can scribe
17:04:08 <aaronpk> scribenick: aaronpk
17:04:10 <tantek> scribe: aaronpk
17:04:44 <aaronpk> tantek: participation is limited to members, so please hang up if you are not a member
17:04:52 <aaronpk> TOPIC: approval of minutes
17:04:54 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-14-minutes
17:05:02 <tsyesika> present+ tsyesika
17:05:05 <aaronpk> tantek: any objections to the minutes?
17:05:12 <wilkie> present+ wilkie
17:05:16 <aaronpk> ...or any +1s
17:05:21 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:05:25 <ben_thatmustbeme> sure
17:05:35 <aaronpk> +1
17:05:38 <akuckartz> +1
17:05:40 <ShaneHudson> +1
17:05:43 <wseltzer> present+ wseltzer
17:05:45 <wilkie> +1
17:05:58 <tantek> RESOLVED: 2015-07-14 minutes approved
17:06:00 <aaronpk> tantek: i'm going to declare the minutes hve been approved
17:06:09 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28#Activity_Streams_2
17:06:10 <aaronpk> TOPIC: Activitystreams 2
17:06:23 <aaronpk> tantek: first item is a pull request
17:06:28 <tantek> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/191
17:06:30 <aaronpk> ... most likely added by james
17:06:44 <aaronpk> jasnell: yeah it was added by me. it's a follow-on to the previous conversation
17:06:48 <aaronpk> ... about the purpose of a colection
17:07:13 <aaronpk> ... the previous converstaion, rather than adding a type identifier or purpose identifier, the preferred approach would be using a propertly, link-rel aproach
17:07:21 <aaronpk> ..that's what this does, to idenity 4 common types of colections
17:07:28 <aaronpk> ... inbox, outbox, relationships
17:07:41 <aaronpk> ... and store, which is a link to the collection that has all your stuff like albums or posts
17:07:49 <aaronpk> ... this is pretty stragithforward, adds 4 properties
17:07:56 <aaronpk> ... deprecates replies in favor of inbox
17:08:03 <aaronpk> ... rather than having a replies collection you have an inbox
17:08:07 <KevinMarks> -1 on inbox over replies
17:08:27 <aaronpk> ... i saw some discussion on IRC about this before
17:08:33 <jasnell> the WD were published last week btw
17:08:47 <aaronpk> tantek: yeah the IRC logs should be recorded, let's assume the IRC logs are there unless someone finds a probelm
17:08:55 <aaronpk> tantek: okay i see one -1 from kevinmarks
17:09:26 <aaronpk> KevinMarks: my concern here is we came up wth reply in the first place based on existing naming practices across social networks
17:09:34 <aaronpk> ..there's a distinction between reply and inbox more than just the name
17:09:43 <aaronpk> ... an inbox is directed at an individual, a reply is directed at a post
17:09:55 <aaronpk> .. conflating the concepts is confusing implementation detail with a meaningful distinction
17:10:02 <aaronpk> tantek: do you have ea counter proposal to james' changes?
17:10:14 <aaronpk> KevinMarks: i'm not sure why he's deleting replies as well as adding inbox
17:10:26 <aaronpk> ... i don't think you can subsume replies with inbox without losing that distinction
17:10:28 <aaronpk> ... i woudl say keep replies as well
17:10:40 <aaronpk> jasnell: we have the existing in reply to property
17:10:52 <aaronpk> ... if something is posted to the inbox with the in-reply0to property you can infer it's a reply
17:10:57 <wilkie> I think the idea is to do filtering of inbox items into whatever you want?
17:11:01 <aaronpk> .. so we have the ability to maintain the distinction without having a separate collection
17:11:12 <aaronpk> ... inbox becomes more generalized
17:11:28 <aaronpk> KevinMarks: so yhow would you express a collection of in-reply-tos
17:11:41 <aaronpk> jasnell: you could do it as an extension, or find a way in the api to dfilter by that
17:11:57 <aaronpk> KevinMarks: i'm not finding that convincing
17:12:16 <aaronpk> ... when you build something very large like twitter, you end up constructing an inbox/outbox model which is howyou do caching
17:12:19 <aaronpk> .. but that is not structural
17:12:38 <aaronpk> tantek: james what was the motivation for this change?
17:12:56 <aaronpk> jasnell: it's going through and pointing to the different collection types for discoverabiilty
17:13:02 <aaronpk> ... the api is working with different collection types
17:13:10 <KevinMarks> http://activitystrea.ms/specs/json/replies/1.0/
17:13:17 <aaronpk> ... the pumpio API is an example, they have differnet ideas of your inbox and outbox
17:13:25 <aaronpk> tantek: so this is an attempt to normalize AS2 with pump?
17:13:27 <aaronpk> jasnell: yeah
17:13:27 <KevinMarks> "replies  Used to provide information about the thread of discussion associated with a given object. Typically, the objects contained will have an implied inReplyTo property value equal to the object containing the replies property."
17:13:41 <aaronpk> ... normalize how we discover these separate types of collections
17:13:50 <aaronpk> tantek: we don't have formal API requirements yet, we just have approved user stories
17:14:03 <aaronpk> ... although someone could take the approved user storeis and write up API requirements
17:14:12 <aaronpk> ... and for each requirement, cite the user story that provides that requirement
17:14:29 <aaronpk> ... but i haven't heard anyone step up to do this
17:14:42 <ben_thatmustbeme> I see it as moving to a more generalized "inbox", something like "webmention endpoint" in the indieweb side of things
17:14:43 <aaronpk> ..bbut if that did exist, you could cite it as an api requirement
17:14:58 <aaronpk> jasnell: if we need to hold off and wait til the api matures more that's fine
17:15:17 <aaronpk> tantek: we also have another agenda item to rename the inbox user story
17:15:20 <aaronpk> .. maybe that will help inform this
17:15:32 <jaywink> jaywink has joined #social
17:15:44 <aaronpk> .. so unless we can come to a quick resolution i don't think we can come to consensus on this call
17:15:48 <KevinMarks> I'm looking for  definition of inbox that is as clear as the 1.0 one for replies
17:16:00 <aaronpk> jasnell: the PR describes where i'm at
17:16:19 <aaronpk> KevinMarks: i' see that we have existing AS 1.0 replies thing which is very detailed, i don't see an equivalent in defining inbox in that way
17:16:42 <aaronpk> jasnell: inbox is intentionally defined as a generalized loosely defined concept
17:16:46 <aaronpk> .. that can contain replies as well as other things
17:17:04 <aaronpk> KevinMarks: it sounds less loose to me
17:17:25 <aaronpk> ...part of this is inbox implies a receiving end. a reply can happen anywhere, but an inbox is a queue of things that have come from outside thaty ou have to dela with
17:17:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> naming issues with "inbox"
17:17:41 <aaronpk> ... in distributed stuff, replies can exist anywhere on the web, but inbox is a queue of things locally
17:17:48 <aaronpk> jasnell: i don't see those as being different things
17:17:58 <aaronpk> ... a reply you're going to receive, so they're conceputlaly identical
17:18:09 <aaronpk> tantek: let me see if i can find a way to move forward
17:18:22 <aaronpk> ... kevin can you come up with a counter proposal or a proposal in addition to james' changes ijn the next 2 weeks/
17:18:29 <aaronpk> KevinMarks: i'll have to read it in more detail
17:18:43 <aaronpk> .. i appreciate it sounds like i'm arguing about the names of things, but i am arguing they are structurally different
17:18:49 <rhiaro> Can you have a Replies collection for a particular post, but not an Inbox collection for a post, Inbox just for a person?
17:18:59 <aaronpk> tantek: the burden is now on you to come up with a propsoal for how the spec should change to indicate they are different concepts
17:19:04 <aaronpk> ... and we can look at that as agroup
17:19:17 <ben_thatmustbeme> rhiaro, thats a good point
17:19:23 <aaronpk> KevinMarks: i'll look at the change in more detail
17:19:57 <aaronpk> ACTION: KevinMarks to provide counter proposal or proposal in addition to James' PR https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/191
17:19:57 <trackbot> Error finding 'KevinMarks'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/users>.
17:20:27 <tantek> item: AS2: Status of publication of editor's draft?
17:20:34 <aaronpk> TOPIC: status of publication of editor's draft
17:20:35 <jasnell> they were published last week
17:21:05 <aaronpk> jasnell: i would like to start a regular candence of once a month publishing a new draft
17:21:16 <jasnell> http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core
17:21:22 <jasnell> http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary
17:21:27 <aaronpk> tantek: congrats for another working draft, appreciate your work on that
17:21:36 <jasnell> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-activitystreams-core-20150722/
17:21:39 <Arnaud> it's in the agenda: Published: http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-activitystreams-core-20150722/ and http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-activitystreams-vocabulary-20150722/
17:21:40 <akuckartz> jasnell++
17:21:43 <Loqi> jasnell has 28 karma
17:21:44 <jasnell> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-activitystreams-vocabulary-20150722/
17:21:56 <aaronpk> tantek: okay good, i agree once a month is a good thing
17:22:19 <tantek> item: AS2: Proposal to replace media type "application/activity+json" by "application/ld+json" plus profile
17:22:19 <aaronpk> TOPIC: re-open proposal to replace media type "application/activity+json" by "application/ld+json" plus profile
17:22:29 <aaronpk> tantek: raised by andreas
17:22:33 <melvster> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Media_type_for_AS2
17:22:40 <aaronpk> ..i pointed out we don't have any new information, but then andreas documented the new information
17:22:57 <aaronpk> ... i'll let andreas present this
17:23:06 <aaronpk> akuckartz: i'll try to keep this short
17:23:28 <aaronpk> ... this one issue was created a while ago
17:23:46 <akuckartz> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/52
17:23:58 <aaronpk> ... which was closed because there was no further discussion or actions
17:24:05 <aaronpk> ... not based on the content of the discussion
17:24:28 <aaronpk> ... i raised this issue of the media type in the SoLiD community and there were several people who agreed it would be better for the linked data community to have the jsonld media type
17:24:44 <aaronpk> ... what i'm interested in is it would be good to have more arguments in favor of having the special AS media type
17:24:57 <aaronpk> ... the main issue that was put forwrad in this issue was the problem of two information models
17:25:11 <jasnell> I'm -1 on removing application/activity+json, but +0 on adding the application/json+ld+profile.
17:25:14 <aaronpk> ... but we alreadya have multiple communities with information models and jsonld is the way to  combine the communities
17:25:24 <aaronpk> ... my proposal is to reopen the discusison and collect more information
17:25:29 <jasnell> the impact is specifically on the API
17:25:57 <jasnell> essentially, it would mean allowing the API to accept: application/json+api;profile=<http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams> as an alternative to application/activity+json
17:26:04 <aaronpk> tantek: okay, sanyone have anything else to add?
17:26:22 <aaronpk> ... if not, we can leave the wiki page open to continue to collect the different options
17:26:26 <melvster> just the wiki page I posted earlier: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Media_type_for_AS2
17:26:31 <aaronpk> ... and advantages and disadvantagses of each
17:26:38 <aaronpk> ... doesn't sound like we have a consensus yet
17:27:17 <aaronpk> jasnell: i'm definitely -1 on removing activity+json media type, but allowing json+ld+profile we can do that also if that makes it easier for the json ld folks
17:27:30 <aaronpk> ... all it takes is adding a section to the spec about the profile parameter and what it means
17:27:41 <aaronpk> tantek: you're requeting we ge tsome additional spec test provided as part of a proposal?
17:27:45 <aaronpk> jasnell: yes
17:27:49 <tantek> s/spec test/spec text
17:28:00 <aaronpk> tantek: does that sound reasonable?
17:28:02 <aaronpk> akuckartz: sure
17:28:12 <KevinMarks> I thought the point of using a specific type was that implied a profile, without having to include it?
17:28:23 <aaronpk> tantek: why don't we leave the wiki page open for contributions for two weeks and re-evalutate it then
17:28:32 <aaronpk> ... is that a reasonable step forward?
17:28:35 <aaronpk> akuckartz: perfect for me
17:28:43 <aaronpk> jasnell: yes and i'll re-open the issue on github
17:28:49 <aaronpk> tantek: thank you both
17:28:58 <aaronpk> TOPIC: Social API
17:29:02 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28#Social_API
17:29:14 <aaronpk> tantek: any update on the brainstorming document?
17:29:31 <rhiaro> q+
17:29:35 <aaronpk> ... i thought i saw all 3 ofyou on the call
17:29:42 <tantek> q?
17:29:44 <tantek> ack rhiaro
17:30:00 <aaronpk> rhiaro: there's nothing in particular to update, there's been some requests to add solid stuff into the api outline document
17:30:02 <Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-07-28]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85250&oldid=85249
17:30:06 <aaronpk> ... but nobody has offered to do that
17:30:51 <aaronpk> tantek: thanks, any questions about the brainstorming docs or specific requests?
17:31:06 <aaronpk> ... okay next item
17:31:10 <melvster> FYI: apache who were doing some work on the SoLiD documentation in the API have left the WG
17:31:17 <csarven> csarven has joined #social
17:31:21 <aaronpk> TOPIC: Rename inbox user story
17:31:30 <aaronpk> tantek: i added this agenda item
17:31:35 <aaronpk> ... to Rename Inbox user story to what it actually is: "Read Social Streams" (or "Social Streams Reader")
17:31:42 <aaronpk> ..b based on some of the comments from the original voting
17:31:52 <aaronpk> ... it seems like the term inbox is causing misunderstanding about what this user story is about
17:31:54 <tantek> item: Social API: Rename Inbox user story to what it actually is: "Read Social Streams" (or "Social Streams Reader")
17:31:59 <aaronpk> ... and assumptions beyond what is in the user story
17:32:08 <aaronpk> ... let's open up the floor for discussion
17:32:15 <aaronpk> ... go ahead and q+ to provide feedback in any way
17:32:17 <tantek> q?
17:32:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> q+
17:32:56 <aaronpk> ben_thatmustbeme: i had brought this up wa while ago. if it's just the name of the user story and doesn't affect teh functionality, i don' tsee any problem
17:33:03 <ShaneHudson> +1 to changing just the name
17:33:10 <aaronpk> tantek: i think in general, because the contents and steps were voted on and approved, it's out of scope to alter that
17:33:20 <aaronpk> .. if there's an alternative user story there's the other page for that
17:33:27 <tantek> q?
17:33:29 <aaronpk> .. this proposal is just about changing the name, keeping the steps as writtne
17:33:32 <tantek> ack ben_thatmustbeme
17:33:36 <aaronpk> q+
17:33:46 <rhiaro> +1
17:33:51 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick:ben_thatmustbeme
17:33:56 <tantek> ack aaronpk
17:34:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: i just wanted to add my +1 to this, because the framing of "inbox" comes with this baggaghe of email-like which is not in the intent of the story
17:34:29 <KevinMarks> Q+
17:34:33 <aaronpk> scribenick: aaronpk
17:34:33 <tantek> ack KevinMarks
17:34:51 <aaronpk> KevinMarks: folowing what i was talking abotu earlier, the nuance is the sense of direction
17:34:59 <aaronpk> ... sergey desribed twitter as email wihtout a "to" address
17:35:14 <aaronpk> ... but there is a mechanism to read it
17:35:22 <aaronpk> ... even tho it's not directed to you
17:35:33 <aaronpk> ... the power of this model is that they don't behave in the way of having an "unread" count
17:35:49 <aaronpk> ... you could do that, but it's underminig the more subtle distinction which is that we hve a web of things people say
17:35:55 <aaronpk> ... and some of them are in response to each other,
17:36:05 <aaronpk> ...but taht shouldn't create a burden on the person to respond to it
17:36:15 <aaronpk> ... calling it inbox brings back that email-centric framing that the web and social web transcends
17:36:24 <ShaneHudson> Agreed about the email mindset being awful
17:36:29 <akuckartz> melvster stated that discussion was initiated on the mailing list.
17:36:31 <aaronpk> tantek: given the input so far let's put this to a straw poll
17:36:45 <melvster> -1 already implementing using the term 'inbox', I did not expect user stories to change at this point, any change would be more work, is the current naming a show stopper for any other implementers?
17:36:46 <aaronpk> PROPSED: rename Inbox story to "Read Social Streams"
17:36:48 <ShaneHudson> +1
17:36:49 <KevinMarks> +1
17:36:50 <melvster> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Media_type_for_AS2
17:36:51 <aaronpk> PROPOSED: rename Inbox story to "Read Social Streams"
17:36:53 <melvster> oops
17:36:53 <aaronpk> +1
17:36:53 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:36:56 <rhiaro> +1
17:36:58 <melvster> -1 already implementing using the term 'inbox', I did not expect user stories to change at this point, any change would be more work, is the current naming a show stopper for any other implementers?
17:37:08 <tantek> +1
17:37:09 <rhiaro> melvster: the story isn't changing... the contents of the story are the same
17:37:21 <ben_thatmustbeme> JUST THE NAME
17:37:21 <aaronpk> tantek: i want to clarify, the user story itsefl is not changing
17:37:24 <wilkie> +1
17:37:28 <tsyesika> 0
17:37:33 <aaronpk> ...so anyone implementing the steps in the user stlory will not need to change their work
17:37:46 <aaronpk> ... but this is about the WG as a whol ebeing better about communicating what we're working on
17:37:46 <akuckartz> -0.5 lets see what happens in the the mailing list discussion
17:37:52 <aaronpk> q+
17:38:02 <KevinMarks> can you link to maling list discussion akuckartz ?
17:38:05 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick:ben_thatmustbeme
17:38:35 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: i just want to point out that the mailing list dicussion that is being brought up on irc is not really a discussion, it is a single email by melvster
17:38:39 <aaronpk> scribenick: aaronpk
17:38:43 <aaronpk> tantek: melvster are you on the phone?
17:38:57 <aaronpk> ... anyone else understand melvin's objection?
17:39:05 <aaronpk> ... the user stories aren't actually changing
17:39:14 <aaronpk> ... wanted to see if there was any other aspect to his objection that we're not taking care of
17:39:31 <aaronpk> ... andreas you wanted to see what happens in the amiling list discussion
17:39:38 <aaronpk> ... aaron pointed out that the discussion has occured on IRC and this phone call
17:39:46 <aaronpk> ... do you have a specific objection to make that we should record?
17:39:46 <rhiaro> ^ and the wiki
17:39:57 <aaronpk> akuckartz: there isn't that much discussion on the amiling list as a whole as far as i see it
17:40:15 <aaronpk> ... my point is we should perhaps not decide on what to do today but keep it open for two weeks and then decide
17:40:20 <aaronpk> tantek: if we had new information i would tend to agree
17:40:25 <tsyesika> well people can -1 when approving the minutes for next meeting?
17:40:29 <KevinMarks> the email says inbox is poorly defined https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Jul/0034.html
17:40:29 <aaronpk> ... but i feel like we have enough consensus to declare today
17:40:40 <tsyesika> if they've missed this because of holiday
17:40:52 <aaronpk> ... absense of discussion is not usually a readson to hold things up
17:40:58 <aaronpk> ... is that reasonable?
17:41:01 <KevinMarks> whereas the social stream story is clear
17:41:03 <aaronpk> akuckartz: that's okay for me
17:41:15 <aaronpk> tantek: alright let's go ahead and declare that reslved then
17:41:29 <aaronpk> ... if someone does come up with new information deserving to reopen it, we can do that
17:41:42 <aaronpk> RESOLVED: rename Inbox user story to "Read Social Streams"
17:41:56 <aaronpk> tantek: we can implement that witha change ont he wiki
17:42:00 <melvster> wait; which of the two suggestions are we renaming it to?
17:42:07 <aaronpk> ... let's keep the fragment IDs so existing links don't break
17:42:14 <aaronpk> ... i can take care of that
17:42:25 <aaronpk> .. we just took the first suggestion
17:42:35 <aaronpk> ... and gives a "nod" to the history of RSS, the coincidence of acronyms
17:42:45 <aaronpk> ... any volunteers to edit the wiki accordingly?
17:42:48 <melvster> well my -1 stands ... no one answered if anyone is implementing this user story
17:42:51 <ben_thatmustbeme> I'll take care of it
17:43:01 <aaronpk> ... thanks ben
17:43:35 <aaronpk> ... just for the minutes, melvin is stil indicating he has a -1 and the reason I chose to override that as chair is my understanding of what he wrote in IRC is his understanding is the user story is changing and that is not true, it's just the name
17:43:47 <aaronpk> ... melvin perhaps you can join the next call if you have new information t o add so we can reconsider that
17:43:57 <ben_thatmustbeme> melvster: how could what is basically a rename of a URL possibly EVER effect your implementation / code ?
17:44:08 <melvster> how could it not?
17:44:09 <tantek> item: Social API:  Complete: moved approved user stories to the "approved" section on the wiki
17:44:17 <aaronpk> TOPIC: Complete: moved approved user stories to the "approved" section on the wiki
17:44:18 <melvster> naming is a large part of what standards is about
17:44:26 <aaronpk> q+
17:44:45 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Approved_user_stories
17:45:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: its just what it sounds like.  I didn't see anyone had done it yet even though approved, so i just went ahead and corrected the wiki with the 8 approved stories
17:45:20 <aaronpk> tantek: great okay
17:45:26 <aaronpk> TOPIC: Charter license update
17:45:26 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28#Charter_License_Update
17:45:42 <aaronpk> sandro: i've done my part, it's in the hands of w3c management
17:45:49 <aaronpk> ... i expect it will go to the AC later this week
17:45:51 <aaronpk> tantek: great
17:46:10 <aaronpk> .. do you know how long we might expect that to take for the AC to look at and approve/reject?
17:46:15 <KevinMarks> I think reader.kylewm.com counts as an implementation of Reading Social Streams
17:46:15 <aaronpk> sandro: i believe it's 4 weeks
17:46:35 <aaronpk> tantek: whatever we can do to minimze the time, if there's something we can request..
17:46:44 <aaronpk> sandro: feel free to talk to the AB to say we don't need an AC review
17:46:51 <aaronpk> tantek: this is a good test case to suggest process improvements
17:47:05 <aaronpk> .. let's see how this goes and document it and se how we can make it go more smoothly in the future
17:47:33 <aaronpk> .. we expect it to go to the AC this week, they'll have 4 weeks to look at it and vote on it, and at the end of that, it will take nother couple weeks to turn the crank and update the charter
17:47:40 <Arnaud> +q
17:47:44 <aaronpk> ... if there are any objections before hand we can relate that to the WG
17:47:52 <tantek> ack aaronpk
17:47:57 <tantek> ack Arnaud
17:48:14 <aaronpk> Arnaud: i was wondering, i didn't see the final decision on what we put before the AC
17:48:19 <aaronpk> ... is it just the license?
17:48:21 <aaronpk> tantek: jsut the license
17:48:23 <KevinMarks> woodwind implements all of that, though 5 would only be security by obscurity for now
17:48:48 <aaronpk> sandro: did you revise the wiki page with the schedule?
17:48:56 <aaronpk> tantek: if there's an action for me let's record that
17:49:13 <sandro> action: tantek to update http://www.w3.org/Social/WG/Overview.html#sched
17:49:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-72 - Update http://www.w3.org/social/wg/overview.html#sched [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-08-04].
17:49:38 <tantek> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/raised
17:49:46 <aaronpk> TOPIC: tracking actions / issues
17:49:47 <tantek> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/pendingreview
17:49:52 <aaronpk> tantek: no pending
17:49:57 <aaronpk> ... no actions pending review
17:50:01 <Loqi> Benthatmustbeme made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/Social API/User stories]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85252&oldid=85220
17:50:02 <tantek> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/pendingreview
17:50:16 <aaronpk> .. anyone want to declare victory on open actions / issues?
17:50:39 <aaronpk> ... alrigh we've got 9 minutes left
17:50:51 <aaronpk> ... i'll confirm the next telcon is August 11, and Arnaud wil be chairing
17:51:05 <aaronpk> ... so no telconference next week
17:51:15 <aaronpk> ... any other business to bring up? or we can close the call and end early
17:51:37 <ShaneHudson> I have to leave now anyway. Thank you tantek
17:51:52 <aaronpk> tantek: okay not hearing anything, so i'd like to thank everyone who joined the tel conference
17:52:09 <aaronpk> .. there's only so much discussion we can do on email and irc, so your participation on the conference helps us make progress
17:52:19 <aaronpk> .. i appreciate you taking time out of your day to join the call
17:52:24 <akuckartz> bye!
17:52:28 <aaronpk> ..have a producte two weeks and we'll talk to you on august 11th!
17:52:28 <tsyesika> bye :)
17:52:40 <wilkie> thanks :) bye
17:52:48 <wilkie> aaronpk++
17:52:50 <melvster> melvster has left #social
17:52:51 <Loqi> aaronpk has 912 karma
17:52:52 <tantek> aaronpk++
17:52:55 <Loqi> aaronpk has 913 karma
17:52:56 <tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++
17:53:00 <Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 106 karma
17:53:25 <tsyesika> aaronpk++
17:53:29 <Loqi> aaronpk has 914 karma
17:53:29 <aaronpk> trackbot: end meeting
17:53:29 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:53:29 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
17:53:33 <tantek> trackbot, end meeting
17:53:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:53:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/28-social-minutes.html trackbot
17:53:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:53:38 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/28-social-actions.rdf :
17:53:38 <RRSAgent> ACTION: KevinMarks to provide counter proposal or proposal in addition to James' PR https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/191 [1]
17:53:38 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/28-social-irc#T17-19-57
17:53:38 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tantek to update http://www.w3.org/Social/WG/Overview.html#sched [2]
17:53:38 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/28-social-irc#T17-49-13
17:53:38 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:53:38 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
17:53:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:53:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/28-social-minutes.html trackbot
17:53:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:53:47 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/28-social-actions.rdf :
17:53:47 <RRSAgent> ACTION: KevinMarks to provide counter proposal or proposal in addition to James' PR https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/191 [1]
17:53:47 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/28-social-irc#T17-19-57
17:53:47 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tantek to update http://www.w3.org/Social/WG/Overview.html#sched [2]
17:53:47 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/28-social-irc#T17-49-13