16:59:12 RRSAgent has joined #social 16:59:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/08/25-social-irc 16:59:12 present+ eprodrom 16:59:17 +Sandro 16:59:19 present+ tantek 16:59:37 elf-pavlik: I replied to your email about liking things, finally :) 16:59:53 rhiaro++ 16:59:56 rhiaro has 153 karma 17:00:02 Sandro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85419&oldid=85410 17:00:03 Eprodrom made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-08-11-minutes]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85421&oldid=0 17:00:16 trackbot, start meeting 17:00:18 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:00:18 Zakim has joined #social 17:00:20 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:00:20 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 17:00:21 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:00:22 Date: 25 August 2015 17:00:25 present+ Arnaud 17:00:28 present+ csarven 17:00:32 present+ Ann 17:00:32 present+ eprodrom 17:00:35 present! cwebber2 17:00:37 o/ 17:00:49 https://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/WebExFAQ#How_do_I_get_a_callback_if_I_can.27t_run_a_WebEx_client.3F 17:01:17 I'll try, Elf 17:01:21 scribe? 17:01:24 sandro++ 17:01:27 sandro has 21 karma 17:01:42 tsyesika, problems connecting? 17:02:25 eprodrom: trying now, sorry was a little delayed 17:02:32 I can scribe 17:02:34 present+ ben_thatmustbeme 17:02:37 yep 17:02:45 scribenick: cwebber2 17:02:46 present+ jasnell 17:03:10 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-25 17:03:26 eprodrom: thanks everyone for coming, I believe when we laid this out this will be the last of our summer meetings 17:03:31 present+ wilkie 17:03:37 present+ rhiaro 17:03:37 eprodrom: so we may have one more skipped meeting next week, then back on regular schedule 17:03:41 tantek: that's what I have too 17:03:55 eprodrom: first order of business, always nice and easy, is to review the minutes from the last meeting 17:04:01 TOPIC: approve minutes of Aug 11 2015 17:04:01 eprodrom: which was two weeks ago 17:04:07 eprodrom: just puttin' that topic in there 17:04:12 +1 to approve 17:04:14 PROPOSED: approve minutes of Aug 11 2015 17:04:15 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-11-minutes 17:04:21 +1 17:04:40 +1 17:04:43 i didn't see them on wiki still 15min ago 17:04:48 +0 17:04:50 eprodrom: these got posted late, just a few minutes ago, but if you can review... 17:04:58 elf-pavlik: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-11-minutes 17:05:05 RESOLVED: approve minutes of Aug 11 2015 17:05:07 eprodrom: barring any other votes, I will mark this as resolved 17:05:07 0 Not happy, but whatever.. lets see whatever is promised. 17:05:18 +0 i'll just trust the crew :) 17:05:28 eprodrom: csarven, are you on the line? I'm not sure what you're saying 17:05:40 csarven: yes, so I'll go along with the decision, I'm just not happy with how it turned out 17:05:43 eprodrom: sounds good 17:06:06 eprodrom: I understand, is that because of how it went through or the late minutes? if at a 0 I'm not going to continue working on that 17:06:13 eprodrom: so let's move on 17:06:40 eprodrom: another thing to discuss is the face to face 17:06:45 TOPIC: F2F Sapporo 17:06:46 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-10-29 17:06:59 eprodrom: registration did open for TPAC in the last week or so 17:07:18 eprodrom: if you do go, you need to register, helps to get everyone on there so we know who will be participating there 17:07:20 q+ 17:07:27 eprodrom: I have regrets, we do have some remote participants 17:07:31 ack sandro 17:07:33 eprodrom: if you will be participating remotely, that will help too 17:07:49 sandro: I think I'm not going, I'm hesitant to buy a ticket until critical mass, but if we all do that it doesn't work 17:08:04 sandro: so talking I said I'd go if enough others go 17:08:21 sandro: so if you're waiting for critical mass, ok 17:08:34 sandro has 22 karma 17:08:35 sandro: if you're waiting for travel approval, or if saying your deadline, maybe say that there 17:09:28 sandro: I want people to buy tickets if there's not a meeting 17:09:35 eprodrom: is there a possibility we won't have a meeting? 17:10:02 Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85422&oldid=85391 17:10:03 Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-08-11-minutes]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85423&oldid=85421 17:10:13 eprodrom: is there a critical mass we need to have, maybe 10 participants and local? 17:10:38 sandro: remote people, it can be really hard to be up for all those hours 17:10:48 sandro: in the boring you can't hear things kind of way 17:11:07 Arnaud: let's be clear, there are 5 people listed, there may be 3 if not more people 17:11:24 Arnaud: if that's the case it might not be worth having 17:11:25 Is there a min count or certain individuals/roles must be present? 17:11:34 Arnaud: it would be helpful if people would indicate 17:12:03 I will not be attending in person. Can attend remotely. 17:12:15 Arnaud: we should make this a 2 face commit thing 17:12:24 s/face/phase 17:12:25 s/2 face/2-phase/ 17:12:28 Arnaud: so if we need critical mass, we can confirm then everyone buys tickets 17:12:32 jasnell update the wiki please so that it is tracked. 17:12:56 eprodrom: let's see if there's a something we can introduce to get number of commitments by a particular date 17:13:10 eprodrom: would 6 weeks be a reasonable time commitment? 17:13:21 eprodrom: maybe by the next telcon? 17:13:21 yes we're ~9 weeks out 17:13:21 sandro: my formal deadline is 4 weeks 17:13:38 sandro: that was a please not a you must(?) 17:13:47 eprodrom: that's a pretty strong date 17:14:25 Arnaud: september 8th seems like reasonable deadline 17:14:43 AnnB: tsyesika and elf-pavlik are waiting to dial in 17:14:56 (???): I was never gven the host code 17:15:01 !tell harry we need host code to diall out from WebEx, could you please share it with sandro and chairs? thx! http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-08-25/line/1440522820835 17:15:03 Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next 17:15:21 present+ tsyesika 17:15:23 s/(???)/Sandro: / 17:15:27 tantek: do we need a critical mass or do this in 2 weeks 17:15:41 cwebber2: who's talking? 17:16:02 sandro: could everyone please update saying what their status is doing an update to the wiki 17:16:14 eprodrom: please do update to the wiki by end of meeting 17:16:17 sandro then evan 17:16:23 eprodrom: in sep 8 meeting we'll make a decision go / no go 17:16:23 @tsyesika, are you on the call? 17:16:36 AnnB: i am 17:16:39 oh good 17:16:57 eprodrom: any fixed goals for the face to face? 17:17:17 tantek: we should at least collect agenda proposals 17:17:33 AnnB: seems like there was good synergy at paris meeting with tech communities presenting how they were doing things 17:17:41 sandro: the whiteboard exercise was great 17:17:58 tantek: how do we keep that momentum going forward is one way to look at the opportunity of the next F2f 17:18:06 tantek: a hackathon before and afterward may be the way to do it 17:18:06 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-10-29#Agenda 17:18:07 hackathon++ 17:18:09 hackathon has 1 karma 17:18:14 eprodrom: I added an agenda section to the wiki page 17:18:15 s/tantek/sandro 17:18:24 cwebber2: arg :) 17:18:57 eprodrom: I'll take an action personally to add items to agenda, see how they go from there 17:19:12 eprodrom: hopefully that will push us on participation 17:19:18 eprodrom: I'd like to move forward on activitystreams 17:19:26 TOPIC: Activity Streams 2.0 17:19:50 eprodrom: would like to take a moment to ask jasnell to give us an update on where we are. last meeting I think we tried to discuss what possibilities there were to go forward toward a CR 17:20:00 eprodrom: I think the challenge was closing issues on github 17:20:01 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85424&oldid=85419 17:20:02 Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85425&oldid=85424 17:20:03 Jsnell made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85426&oldid=85425 17:20:04 Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85427&oldid=85426 17:20:05 Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85428&oldid=85427 17:20:14 jasnell: the primary outstanding PR right now on github is refactoring of the paging model 17:20:32 jasnell: status of the ?? group is using the collection model as part of their api 17:20:34 what group? 17:20:48 jasnell: in response to that feedback I got a revised version of the model, seprating collection from individual page 17:21:00 jasnell: PR is sitting out there right now for 3 weeks, doesn't appear to have significant review 17:21:07 jasnell: but if folks could take a look at it... 17:21:15 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/199 17:21:23 jasnell: the other open PR there is the example changes that I still need to review 17:21:40 eprodrom: so the PR with the collection changes, should we or could we discuss now? is that a good use of time? 17:21:46 eprodrom: might move us a bit forward... 17:22:02 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/199 17:22:11 eprodrom: if people are ok with doing that, maybe what we can do is come to a conclusion in-meeting 17:22:16 eprodrom: and adopt/pull the PR? 17:22:18 sorry, didn't see that eprodrom had already posted 17:22:21 almereyda has joined #social 17:22:34 eprodrom: does that sound like a good way to do our time? esp if moving AS 2.0 forward, might be a good way to use next 10/15 minutes 17:22:38 jasnell: can give a quick rundown 17:22:41 eprodrom: sounds great 17:22:55 jasnell: original paging model for AS2 was have collection object, collection object had array of items 17:23:04 jasnell: had subset of collections in items 17:23:14 jasnell: so collection object might have 10 items of next/previous items 17:23:29 jasnell: challenge with that is the way it was defined conflated logical collection with page which they aren't 17:23:37 jasnell: from a basic json point of view that's ok but 17:23:45 jasnell: from a rdf point of view, not ok 17:23:57 jasnell: we've had that feedback before but at the time chose not to persue changes 17:24:07 jasnell: the edit at this point introduces a few new concepts 17:24:13 jasnell: including collection page 17:24:23 jasnell: nad now an ordered collection page variant 17:24:34 jasnell: can still have individual, but if you want subsets, can use collection page 17:24:42 relevant issue from Hydra CG discussed over a year ago https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/42 17:24:56 jasnell: to view changes, check out branch, called revfactor-paging 17:25:01 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/commit/beb7ced5f801050dd53b5fe9ca8d5099ec82b9d7 17:25:05 jasnell: you can view changes in browser, they are fairly extensive 17:25:15 q+ 17:25:22 ack Arnaud 17:25:23 jasnell: not a huge difference, but they are moved and clarified down to the collection page level 17:25:45 Arnaud: a comment, I'm not against current proposal but want to gie you history on LDP paging, we originally started with something similar 17:25:52 Arnaud: Where all paging mechanism was done in content 17:26:11 Arnaud: but we got pushback with timbl by saying you're polluting content 17:26:21 Arnaud: so we moved all the paging stuff to HTTP headers 17:26:25 Arnaud has 24 karma 17:26:31 jasnell: and that approach involves ??? headers 17:26:44 jasnell: like link rel previous rel next kind of thing 17:26:45 HTTP 17:26:46 Arnaud: yes 17:27:17 eprodrom: if you don't mind I'd like to describe AS 1.0 collections, allllmost the same as what we're describing 17:27:30 relevant discussion to 'polluting content' in Hydra CG list https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2015Aug/0037.html 17:27:33 eprodrom: this seems a huuuge step forward in clarity, making it easier for producers/consumers to manage 17:27:52 eprodrom: giving pages their own class and reifying them, aI also like that we've maintained the ability to maintain the entire collection in the whole object 17:28:02 eprodrom: so we haven't forced paging for collections of 5/10/15 items 17:28:12 q+ 17:28:19 ack jasnell 17:28:20 eprodrom: so I for one think it's a big step forward, the big question arnaud brought up is whether we need to look closer at LDP paging 17:28:33 q+ re: should paging belong to API? (IRC only, sorry but WebEx host code issue got me :( ) 17:28:40 *sniff* 17:28:42 jasnell: so I view LDP paging as orthogonal; it's compatible. LDP paging is mainly off of link header, we can make use of that 17:28:48 jasnell: we've already prototyped that it does work 17:28:59 jasnell: so we can have collection page and still have link headers at the sme time 17:29:06 jasnell: permit implementers to choose which they want 17:29:12 eprodrom: whoa, that's an interesting question 17:29:25 eprodrom: idea is we'd support LDP paging as part of collection mechanism if you so chose? 17:29:36 jasnell: yeah we don't have to spec it, implementer can use them together if they choose 17:29:36 There is a tradeoff. What's the intention for paging? UI or machine consumption? 17:29:50 wouldn't that need to be spec'd for interop? 17:29:57 eprodrom: ok but if I was a consumer and trying to read a collection you published, would I have to understand both LDP paging and AS paging? 17:30:03 jasnell: well you could understand just one 17:30:11 sandro: how do you know which you need to understand 17:30:15 sandro: you need both? 17:30:20 csarven, why do you need different pahs for machine and person? hypermedia++ 17:30:25 sandro: either the server has to emit both, or the client understands both 17:30:33 eprodrom: I think that is something we might need to call into play... 17:30:44 eprodrom: james, is there a way we can go... 17:30:46 tantek has joined #social 17:30:48 a client GET's a collection, it can look at the headers if it wants, use them if they are there 17:30:49 q+ 17:30:55 eprodrom: one option is to ignore LDP paging, the other is to spec out how interop works 17:30:56 ack elf-pavlik 17:30:56 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss should paging belong to API? (IRC only, sorry but WebEx host code issue got me :( ) 17:31:07 otherwise, they look for the collection paging properties in the json-ld 17:31:08 eprodrom: elf-pavlik: you're on the q 17:31:10 I would like to propose leaving paging to API and not data syntax 17:31:25 since it deals with *interface* not modeling domains 17:31:45 +1 paging is an API issue 17:31:46 do we need it if we have direct access to dataset? 17:32:00 cwebber2: that was me that asked about link prev next, not jasnell 17:32:05 q? 17:32:12 ack Arnaud 17:32:19 cwebber2: tantek: I'm haivng trouble discerning between you, sandro, jasnell today :) 17:32:26 q+ to state that paging and collections are two different things. plumbing/API vs. user-level concept. 17:32:30 elf-pavlik If direct access, yo ucan control that through the query mechanism for instance. 17:32:50 can we get a URL for that WG note Arnaud ? 17:32:55 cwebber2: tantek and jasnell sound a lot alike 17:33:03 Arnaud: I"m not arguing that we do LDP paging, it's a workingg group note, so we published it to the working group note, it's been months in the LDP workign group working on paging, and I'm looking at this saying "oh my, here we go again..." 17:33:15 Arnaud: there are issues related to separation of concerns taht come in here 17:33:16 tantek, this one? http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-paging/ 17:33:18 cwebber2 no prob. will try to announce my presence 17:33:21 Arnaud: this may be in line with API 17:33:27 elf-pavlik: I don't know - hence why I'm asking Arnaud for a citation 17:33:39 Arnaud: and whether or not you can separating the ?? 17:33:57 Arnaud: what lead LDP group to headers is it allows it to move to a lower level(?) 17:34:02 Arnaud: that's why we moved to this 17:34:15 Arnaud: I'm not pushing for one, I think we should go with one rather than 2 17:34:26 eprodrom: it looks like we're coming up with many alternative proposals 17:34:32 PROPOSED: accept PR #119 17:34:34 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/199 17:34:37 eprodrom: I'd like to make a proposal to accept PR as documented 17:34:44 PROPOSED: accept PR #199 17:34:45 +1 17:34:52 I would use as rulle of thumbe for social syntax: "what construct i need to express data and use it if i can download the whole dump of given dataset" 17:34:57 +1 17:35:03 eprodrom: I'm not sure if we need to close off discussion, but I would like to make this what's on the floor right now 17:35:04 +0 haven't had time to review, but no objection, trusting editor to keep things moving forward 17:35:09 0 17:35:15 0 Haven't reviewed. 17:35:17 +0 haven't reviewed 17:35:32 q? 17:35:39 this seems to be progress anyway 17:35:42 +0 haven't reviewed but I am near +1 because it sounds sensibleish? 17:35:45 ack tantek 17:35:45 tantek, you wanted to state that paging and collections are two different things. plumbing/API vs. user-level concept. 17:36:10 +1 tantek 17:36:11 tantek: I don't know if this will help, but talking about paging and collections, the paging does seem like it's a data acdess kind of low level thing 17:36:24 tantek: so that seems like something I'm ok with that moving to the api, as opposed to that being defined in AS 17:36:32 tantek: collections to me are much more of a user thing 17:36:40 tantek: I'm going to post a collection of stuff 17:36:42 indiewebcamp.com/collection 17:36:44 I also think that paging seems more appropriate for the API. 17:36:54 tantek: so I'm advising we don't conflate those two 17:36:59 can we make straw man pool if we can move it to API ? 17:37:08 +1 seems fine enough. I could see this being placed in the api instead since CollectionPage etc will be ephemeral. 17:37:09 tantek: which might allow us to keep collection posts in activitystreams while moving paging to a different level? 17:37:16 q+ 17:37:22 ack eprodrom 17:37:51 /evans-pictures?page=2 17:37:57 /evans-pictures 17:38:16 eprodrom: so if we have a URL like (two above) I think the core proposal would have us return a page for the first item and a collection for the second item 17:38:30 eprodrom: obviously these are examples for proposals but not API (?) 17:38:55 eprodrom: so even if we think paging is something API handles, that would be if we think page representations should be different than non-page representations (??) it would be useful to have object classes for both of those 17:38:59 q? 17:39:00 similar proposal for Hydra *API* https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/42#issuecomment-40717244 17:39:07 cwebber2: I'm not totally sure I got that right eprodrom, please review 17:39:26 eprodrom: has everyone chimed in on the proposal who will like to? 17:39:40 is everyone chimed in who would like to make a decision? 17:39:46 abstain 17:40:00 API may need to add AS2 independent vocabulary terms, i don't think we should shovel something in there 'just in case we need it' 17:40:12 justincaseweneedit-- 17:40:15 justincaseweneedit has -1 karma 17:40:17 RESOLVED: accept PR #199 17:40:44 eprodrom: so we're at 10:40, we have two other AS2.0 discussions 17:40:54 TOPIC: as:Like vs as:like 17:41:08 eprodrom: first is about likes, as:Like vs as:like 17:41:08 elf-pavlik, please explain 17:41:09 i couldn't join call due to missing host code for dial out :( 17:41:17 eprodrom: elf-pavlik, please explain 17:41:33 eprodrom: elf-pavlik, how would you like to proceed 17:41:35 i would invite everyone to read email and social-vocab illustration and prepare for discussing it in 2 weeks 17:41:36 He suggested earlier that we can put it off to the next meeting 17:41:37 eprodrom: you can type or make proposal 17:41:40 elf-pavlik, how would you like to proceed? You can type, or make a proposal, or we can defer until next week 17:41:42 eprodrom: or we can defer until next week 17:41:52 in *2 weeks* ? 17:41:56 eprodrom: ok we'll move to next week 17:42:09 eprodrom: next proposal also proposed by elf-pavlik 17:42:12 elf-pavlik, shall we move the next proposal to next week? 17:42:14 right, s/next week/next call/ 17:42:16 eprodrom: would like to move next proposal to next week 17:42:22 our wiki currently says "2015-09-08 Telecon (no 2015-09-01 call) chair: Tantek" 17:42:23 eprodrom: yes I'm sorry, next call not next week 17:42:28 fyi... I will not be here for the next call 17:42:36 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Future_Meetings 17:42:40 will be attending NodeConfEU 17:42:44 elf-pavlik, waiting for your response to move on 17:42:49 i put it there after exchanging emails with harry on mailing list 17:43:09 yes lets postpone it for when we get hold of webex host code 17:43:21 eprodrom: in absence of response, will move it to sep 8th timeframe 17:43:32 TOPIC: Social API user stories 17:43:34 eprodrom: would like to move on to next topic about social apis user stories 17:43:45 eprodrom: AnnB asked that we discuss these user stories 17:43:51 eprodrom: so AnnB ? 17:44:15 AnnB: my question was in regard to interest group, we originally understood request from working fgroup to work through esp stories with minor objections 17:44:30 AnnB: so users could agree with user stories esp with relatively minor objections 17:44:37 AnnB: we have to have the people who are the objectors engage 17:44:51 AnnB: so question is, is that useful for us to do, and if yes, can we use every other working group meeting 17:45:00 AnnB: I guess we're coming towards end of summer schedule so 17:45:12 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories#Entirely_Positive_or_Positive_Neutral 17:45:13 AnnB: but is it useful for working group to try to resolve the user stories 17:45:25 I thought that was going to happen last week - but heard nothing 17:45:43 eprodrom: will resolve question with a question, here's a set of user storeis which are +0 or 0 means "I don't care enough to fully object to let it go through" 17:45:51 eprodrom: are we trying to resolve those also 17:45:52 http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-08-18 17:45:59 eprodrom: or also -1 or -0s 17:46:08 AnnB: we were focusing on "minor objections" stories 17:46:11 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories#Minor_Objections 17:46:26 AnnB: when you read the objections they tend to be about language nuances rather than about whole concept of the story 17:46:38 AnnB: so it seems relatively easy to resolve those objections 17:47:28 tantek: in my experience many of those had loose language like "solve the problems of the whole world" which is beyond charter, so given dialogue around user stories was around "this user story was approved so we have to do everything possible around them" 17:47:46 tantek: not sure how to resolve, but want to raise 17:48:00 tantek: consternation around inbox problem is an example 17:48:20 eprodrom: suggestions on how to proceed, here are examples with not all +1s but +1s and 0s 17:48:35 indeed we should look at the 0s 17:48:40 and see why 17:48:41 eprodrom: we have not accepted those, Annb is it your understanding we can or should? i thin kwe should 17:48:56 Annb: i'm looking for indication on what the IG should tdo that's valuable and supports the IG 17:49:13 If another batch of user stories get formally 'accepted' I'm happy to go through them and do api requirements extraction as before 17:49:22 annb: the entirely positive are entirely positive, no objections, but the +1s or +0s, I look to you to sort this out 17:49:35 annb: and question raised, how rigid are these, are they locked in stone or? 17:49:38 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Approved_user_stories 17:49:44 q+ 17:50:03 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85429&oldid=85428 17:50:09 eprodrom: you asked a question I wanted to make sure you were aware, we have a list of approved user stories, we 've mapped these out as the ones we've agreed to implement 17:50:13 eprodrom: this is the magic list 17:50:17 we can label stories with MUST || SHOULD || MAY and make sure we have implementation for MUST and our decision don't block anything needed for SHOULD and possibly bear in mind to not block MAY 17:50:30 eprodrom: there sis expectation that those user storeis not in those approved list we either need to resolve as rejected or accept 17:50:37 I like what elf-pavlik said 17:50:38 eprodrom: we do need to get to a sorting process 17:50:46 +q 17:50:56 eprodrom: I think SWAT0 was an important one 17:51:09 eprodrom: second one was a sorting user stories entirely postiive, we accepted all of those 17:51:18 eprodrom: what we haven't accepted are the other ones on those page 17:51:35 eprodrom: if there's a process, I think a process as a group would be proposing then accepting those stories 17:51:42 eprodrom: I think it would be unlikely to do it in a different way 17:51:45 ack tantek 17:51:53 tantek: no problem 17:52:00 AnnB: I have a quesiton, can I clarify 17:52:01 +q to ask if accepting a story *obligates* us to show working implementation based on delivered specs before claiming victory? 17:52:27 AnnB: so the approved user stories, I think we can see swat0, are those one and the same as the ones that were entirely positive 17:52:37 AnnB: user posts a note, reading ((?)) 17:53:04 eprodrom: yes those were entirely positive, in july/june we voted whether to accept, and we decided to accept those ones in particular 17:53:41 annb: yes I understood that part, what I thought was the baseline was those were the entirely postivie and swat0, I think that for future work the IG was to work on ones that weren't entirely positive 17:53:49 annb: so we don't want to do work that's not valuable 17:53:56 ack tantek 17:54:04 annb: seems interesting to work on, but if not valuable it's not valuable 17:54:13 annb: also sound is breaking up fo rme, not sure for everyone else 17:55:21 tantek: yeah, so I was going to point out regarding user stories, there's a bit of difference in how we resolve user stories than other ones, I'd look at the ones we had +1s, and why would there be 0s or -1s. if its' all +1s and +0s, what's the problem, but compared to ???? and -1s 17:55:34 tantek: the traditional way is traditional w3c thing is if nobody objects move forward 17:55:41 tantek: but I said that's a bad way to move forward 17:56:44 annb: a number of things were like "there's an attachment in the middle, but should it really be anywhere", that's easy to resolve 17:56:52 dropping. have another call I need to prep for 17:56:57 eprodrom: I understand that, that's a reasonable way to sort them, but there is like 100 of them 17:57:08 annb: yeah evan, aren't the sortings that ben_thatmustbeme were like that 17:57:21 q? 17:57:31 eprodrom: yes but tantek is saying whether or not the ??? 17:57:41 tantek: I was just answering annb's question 17:57:54 q? 17:57:58 tantek: I was just saying, pick at ones that have ones that have more +1s, rather than "least objections" 17:58:04 q+ 17:58:16 eprodrom: sorry to do this but will jump to front of queue 17:58:22 +1 17:58:23 +1 17:58:24 eprodrom: I'm going to propose we extend by 10 mintues 17:58:25 PROPOSED: 10 minute extension of meeting 17:58:28 +1 17:58:29 +1 17:58:32 +0 17:58:35 q? 17:58:40 +1 17:58:48 ack cwebber 17:59:01 RESOLVED: 10 minute extension of meeting 17:59:02 scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme 17:59:50 cwebber: i was going to say that, if the IG finds many of these are easy to resolve, I would trust the IG to find the ones that are most close to being resolvable 18:00:00