IRC log of social on 2015-08-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
16:59:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:59:12 [eprodrom]
present+ eprodrom
16:59:17 [sandro]
16:59:19 [tantek]
present+ tantek
16:59:37 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: I replied to your email about liking things, finally :)
16:59:53 [elf-pavlik]
16:59:56 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 153 karma
17:00:02 [Loqi]
Sandro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]]
17:00:03 [Loqi]
Eprodrom made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-08-11-minutes]]
17:00:16 [eprodrom]
trackbot, start meeting
17:00:18 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:00:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:00:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:00:20 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:00:21 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:00:22 [trackbot]
Date: 25 August 2015
17:00:25 [Arnaud]
present+ Arnaud
17:00:28 [csarven]
present+ csarven
17:00:32 [AnnB]
present+ Ann
17:00:32 [eprodrom]
present+ eprodrom
17:00:35 [cwebber2]
present! cwebber2
17:00:37 [cwebber2]
17:00:49 [eprodrom]
17:01:17 [sandro]
I'll try, Elf
17:01:21 [eprodrom]
17:01:24 [elf-pavlik]
17:01:27 [Loqi]
sandro has 21 karma
17:01:42 [eprodrom]
tsyesika, problems connecting?
17:02:25 [tsyesika]
eprodrom: trying now, sorry was a little delayed
17:02:32 [cwebber2]
I can scribe
17:02:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
present+ ben_thatmustbeme
17:02:37 [cwebber2]
17:02:45 [eprodrom]
scribenick: cwebber2
17:02:46 [jasnell]
present+ jasnell
17:03:10 [eprodrom]
17:03:26 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: thanks everyone for coming, I believe when we laid this out this will be the last of our summer meetings
17:03:31 [wilkie]
present+ wilkie
17:03:37 [rhiaro]
present+ rhiaro
17:03:37 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so we may have one more skipped meeting next week, then back on regular schedule
17:03:41 [cwebber2]
tantek: that's what I have too
17:03:55 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: first order of business, always nice and easy, is to review the minutes from the last meeting
17:04:01 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: approve minutes of Aug 11 2015
17:04:01 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: which was two weeks ago
17:04:07 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: just puttin' that topic in there
17:04:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1 to approve
17:04:14 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: approve minutes of Aug 11 2015
17:04:15 [eprodrom]
17:04:21 [tantek]
17:04:40 [eprodrom]
17:04:43 [elf-pavlik]
i didn't see them on wiki still 15min ago
17:04:48 [elf-pavlik]
17:04:50 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: these got posted late, just a few minutes ago, but if you can review...
17:04:58 [tantek]
17:05:05 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: approve minutes of Aug 11 2015
17:05:07 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: barring any other votes, I will mark this as resolved
17:05:07 [csarven]
0 Not happy, but whatever.. lets see whatever is promised.
17:05:18 [elf-pavlik]
+0 i'll just trust the crew :)
17:05:28 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: csarven, are you on the line? I'm not sure what you're saying
17:05:40 [cwebber2]
csarven: yes, so I'll go along with the decision, I'm just not happy with how it turned out
17:05:43 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: sounds good
17:06:06 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so let's move on
17:06:40 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: another thing to discuss is the face to face
17:06:45 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: F2F Sapporo
17:06:46 [eprodrom]
17:06:59 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: registration did open for TPAC in the last week or so
17:07:18 [cwebber2]
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 [sandro]
17:07:27 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I have regrets, we do have some remote participants
17:07:31 [eprodrom]
ack sandro
17:07:33 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: if you will be participating remotely, that will help too
17:07:49 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
sandro: so talking I said I'd go if enough others go
17:08:21 [cwebber2]
sandro: so if you're waiting for critical mass, ok
17:08:34 [Loqi]
sandro has 22 karma
17:08:35 [cwebber2]
sandro: if you're waiting for travel approval, or if saying your deadline, maybe say that there
17:09:28 [cwebber2]
sandro: I want people to buy tickets if there's not a meeting
17:09:35 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: is there a possibility we won't have a meeting?
17:10:02 [Loqi]
Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]]
17:10:03 [Loqi]
Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-08-11-minutes]]
17:10:13 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: is there a critical mass we need to have, maybe 10 participants and local?
17:10:38 [cwebber2]
sandro: remote people, it can be really hard to be up for all those hours
17:10:48 [cwebber2]
sandro: in the boring you can't hear things kind of way
17:11:07 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: let's be clear, there are 5 people listed, there may be 3 if not more people
17:11:24 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: if that's the case it might not be worth having
17:11:25 [csarven]
Is there a min count or certain individuals/roles must be present?
17:11:34 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: it would be helpful if people would indicate
17:12:03 [jasnell]
I will not be attending in person. Can attend remotely.
17:12:15 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: we should make this a 2 face commit thing
17:12:24 [tantek]
17:12:25 [eprodrom]
s/2 face/2-phase/
17:12:28 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: so if we need critical mass, we can confirm then everyone buys tickets
17:12:32 [csarven]
jasnell update the wiki please so that it is tracked.
17:12:56 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: let's see if there's a something we can introduce to get number of commitments by a particular date
17:13:10 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: would 6 weeks be a reasonable time commitment?
17:13:21 [tantek]
eprodrom: maybe by the next telcon?
17:13:21 [tantek]
yes we're ~9 weeks out
17:13:21 [cwebber2]
sandro: my formal deadline is 4 weeks
17:13:38 [cwebber2]
sandro: that was a please not a you must(?)
17:13:47 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: that's a pretty strong date
17:14:25 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: september 8th seems like reasonable deadline
17:14:43 [cwebber2]
AnnB: tsyesika and elf-pavlik are waiting to dial in
17:14:56 [cwebber2]
(???): I was never gven the host code
17:15:01 [elf-pavlik]
!tell harry we need host code to diall out from WebEx, could you please share it with sandro and chairs? thx!
17:15:03 [Loqi]
Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
17:15:21 [tsyesika]
present+ tsyesika
17:15:23 [AnnB]
s/(???)/Sandro: /
17:15:27 [cwebber2]
tantek: do we need a critical mass or do this in 2 weeks
17:15:41 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: who's talking?
17:16:02 [cwebber2]
sandro: could everyone please update saying what their status is doing an update to the wiki
17:16:14 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: please do update to the wiki by end of meeting
17:16:17 [tantek]
sandro then evan
17:16:23 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: in sep 8 meeting we'll make a decision go / no go
17:16:23 [AnnB]
@tsyesika, are you on the call?
17:16:36 [tsyesika]
AnnB: i am
17:16:39 [AnnB]
oh good
17:16:57 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: any fixed goals for the face to face?
17:17:17 [cwebber2]
tantek: we should at least collect agenda proposals
17:17:33 [cwebber2]
AnnB: seems like there was good synergy at paris meeting with tech communities presenting how they were doing things
17:17:41 [cwebber2]
sandro: the whiteboard exercise was great
17:17:58 [cwebber2]
tantek: how do we keep that momentum going forward is one way to look at the opportunity of the next F2f
17:18:06 [cwebber2]
tantek: a hackathon before and afterward may be the way to do it
17:18:06 [eprodrom]
17:18:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:18:09 [Loqi]
hackathon has 1 karma
17:18:14 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I added an agenda section to the wiki page
17:18:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:18:24 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: arg :)
17:18:57 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I'll take an action personally to add items to agenda, see how they go from there
17:19:12 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: hopefully that will push us on participation
17:19:18 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I'd like to move forward on activitystreams
17:19:26 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: Activity Streams 2.0
17:19:50 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I think the challenge was closing issues on github
17:20:01 [Loqi]
Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]]
17:20:02 [Loqi]
Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]]
17:20:03 [Loqi]
Jsnell made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]]
17:20:04 [Loqi]
Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]]
17:20:05 [Loqi]
Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]]
17:20:14 [cwebber2]
jasnell: the primary outstanding PR right now on github is refactoring of the paging model
17:20:32 [cwebber2]
jasnell: status of the ?? group is using the collection model as part of their api
17:20:34 [cwebber2]
what group?
17:20:48 [cwebber2]
jasnell: in response to that feedback I got a revised version of the model, seprating collection from individual page
17:21:00 [cwebber2]
jasnell: PR is sitting out there right now for 3 weeks, doesn't appear to have significant review
17:21:07 [cwebber2]
jasnell: but if folks could take a look at it...
17:21:15 [eprodrom]
17:21:23 [cwebber2]
jasnell: the other open PR there is the example changes that I still need to review
17:21:40 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: might move us a bit forward...
17:22:02 [jasnell]
17:22:11 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: if people are ok with doing that, maybe what we can do is come to a conclusion in-meeting
17:22:16 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: and adopt/pull the PR?
17:22:18 [jasnell]
sorry, didn't see that eprodrom had already posted
17:22:21 [almereyda]
almereyda has joined #social
17:22:34 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
jasnell: can give a quick rundown
17:22:41 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: sounds great
17:22:55 [cwebber2]
jasnell: original paging model for AS2 was have collection object, collection object had array of items
17:23:04 [cwebber2]
jasnell: had subset of collections in items
17:23:14 [cwebber2]
jasnell: so collection object might have 10 items of next/previous items
17:23:29 [cwebber2]
jasnell: challenge with that is the way it was defined conflated logical collection with page which they aren't
17:23:37 [cwebber2]
jasnell: from a basic json point of view that's ok but
17:23:45 [cwebber2]
jasnell: from a rdf point of view, not ok
17:23:57 [cwebber2]
jasnell: we've had that feedback before but at the time chose not to persue changes
17:24:07 [cwebber2]
jasnell: the edit at this point introduces a few new concepts
17:24:13 [cwebber2]
jasnell: including collection page
17:24:23 [cwebber2]
jasnell: nad now an ordered collection page variant
17:24:34 [cwebber2]
jasnell: can still have individual, but if you want subsets, can use collection page
17:24:42 [elf-pavlik]
relevant issue from Hydra CG discussed over a year ago
17:24:56 [cwebber2]
jasnell: to view changes, check out branch, called revfactor-paging
17:25:01 [eprodrom]
17:25:05 [cwebber2]
jasnell: you can view changes in browser, they are fairly extensive
17:25:15 [Arnaud]
17:25:22 [eprodrom]
ack Arnaud
17:25:23 [cwebber2]
jasnell: not a huge difference, but they are moved and clarified down to the collection page level
17:25:45 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: Where all paging mechanism was done in content
17:26:11 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: but we got pushback with timbl by saying you're polluting content
17:26:21 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: so we moved all the paging stuff to HTTP headers
17:26:25 [Loqi]
Arnaud has 24 karma
17:26:31 [cwebber2]
jasnell: and that approach involves ??? headers
17:26:44 [cwebber2]
jasnell: like link rel previous rel next kind of thing
17:26:45 [eprodrom]
17:26:46 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: yes
17:27:17 [cwebber2]
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 [elf-pavlik]
relevant discussion to 'polluting content' in Hydra CG list
17:27:33 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: this seems a huuuge step forward in clarity, making it easier for producers/consumers to manage
17:27:52 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so we haven't forced paging for collections of 5/10/15 items
17:28:12 [jasnell]
17:28:19 [eprodrom]
ack jasnell
17:28:20 [cwebber2]
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 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: should paging belong to API? (IRC only, sorry but WebEx host code issue got me :( )
17:28:40 [Loqi]
17:28:42 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
jasnell: we've already prototyped that it does work
17:28:59 [cwebber2]
jasnell: so we can have collection page and still have link headers at the sme time
17:29:06 [cwebber2]
jasnell: permit implementers to choose which they want
17:29:12 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: whoa, that's an interesting question
17:29:25 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: idea is we'd support LDP paging as part of collection mechanism if you so chose?
17:29:36 [cwebber2]
jasnell: yeah we don't have to spec it, implementer can use them together if they choose
17:29:36 [csarven]
There is a tradeoff. What's the intention for paging? UI or machine consumption?
17:29:50 [wilkie]
wouldn't that need to be spec'd for interop?
17:29:57 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
jasnell: well you could understand just one
17:30:11 [cwebber2]
sandro: how do you know which you need to understand
17:30:15 [cwebber2]
sandro: you need both?
17:30:20 [elf-pavlik]
csarven, why do you need different pahs for machine and person? hypermedia++
17:30:25 [cwebber2]
sandro: either the server has to emit both, or the client understands both
17:30:33 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I think that is something we might need to call into play...
17:30:44 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: james, is there a way we can go...
17:30:46 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
17:30:48 [jasnell]
a client GET's a collection, it can look at the headers if it wants, use them if they are there
17:30:49 [Arnaud]
17:30:55 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: one option is to ignore LDP paging, the other is to spec out how interop works
17:30:56 [eprodrom]
ack elf-pavlik
17:30:56 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss should paging belong to API? (IRC only, sorry but WebEx host code issue got me :( )
17:31:07 [jasnell]
otherwise, they look for the collection paging properties in the json-ld
17:31:08 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: elf-pavlik: you're on the q
17:31:10 [elf-pavlik]
I would like to propose leaving paging to API and not data syntax
17:31:25 [elf-pavlik]
since it deals with *interface* not modeling domains
17:31:45 [sandro]
+1 paging is an API issue
17:31:46 [elf-pavlik]
do we need it if we have direct access to dataset?
17:32:00 [tantek]
cwebber2: that was me that asked about link prev next, not jasnell
17:32:05 [tantek]
17:32:12 [eprodrom]
ack Arnaud
17:32:19 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: tantek: I'm haivng trouble discerning between you, sandro, jasnell today :)
17:32:26 [tantek]
q+ to state that paging and collections are two different things. plumbing/API vs. user-level concept.
17:32:30 [csarven]
elf-pavlik If direct access, yo ucan control that through the query mechanism for instance.
17:32:50 [tantek]
can we get a URL for that WG note Arnaud ?
17:32:55 [wilkie]
cwebber2: tantek and jasnell sound a lot alike
17:33:03 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: there are issues related to separation of concerns taht come in here
17:33:16 [elf-pavlik]
tantek, this one?
17:33:18 [tantek]
cwebber2 no prob. will try to announce my presence
17:33:21 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: this may be in line with API
17:33:27 [tantek]
elf-pavlik: I don't know - hence why I'm asking Arnaud for a citation
17:33:39 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: and whether or not you can separating the ??
17:33:57 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: what lead LDP group to headers is it allows it to move to a lower level(?)
17:34:02 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: that's why we moved to this
17:34:15 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: I'm not pushing for one, I think we should go with one rather than 2
17:34:26 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: it looks like we're coming up with many alternative proposals
17:34:32 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: accept PR #119
17:34:34 [eprodrom]
17:34:37 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I'd like to make a proposal to accept PR as documented
17:34:44 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: accept PR #199
17:34:45 [jasnell]
17:34:52 [elf-pavlik]
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 [eprodrom]
17:35:03 [cwebber2]
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 [tantek]
+0 haven't had time to review, but no objection, trusting editor to keep things moving forward
17:35:09 [elf-pavlik]
17:35:15 [csarven]
0 Haven't reviewed.
17:35:17 [rhiaro]
+0 haven't reviewed
17:35:32 [eprodrom]
17:35:39 [Arnaud]
this seems to be progress anyway
17:35:42 [cwebber2]
+0 haven't reviewed but I am near +1 because it sounds sensibleish?
17:35:45 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
17:35:45 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to state that paging and collections are two different things. plumbing/API vs. user-level concept.
17:36:10 [elf-pavlik]
+1 tantek
17:36:11 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
tantek: collections to me are much more of a user thing
17:36:40 [cwebber2]
tantek: I'm going to post a collection of stuff
17:36:42 [tantek]
17:36:44 [csarven]
I also think that paging seems more appropriate for the API.
17:36:54 [cwebber2]
tantek: so I'm advising we don't conflate those two
17:36:59 [elf-pavlik]
can we make straw man pool if we can move it to API ?
17:37:08 [wilkie]
+1 seems fine enough. I could see this being placed in the api instead since CollectionPage etc will be ephemeral.
17:37:09 [cwebber2]
tantek: which might allow us to keep collection posts in activitystreams while moving paging to a different level?
17:37:16 [eprodrom]
17:37:22 [eprodrom]
ack eprodrom
17:37:51 [eprodrom]
17:37:57 [eprodrom]
17:38:16 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: obviously these are examples for proposals but not API (?)
17:38:55 [cwebber2]
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 [eprodrom]
17:39:00 [elf-pavlik]
similar proposal for Hydra *API*
17:39:07 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: I'm not totally sure I got that right eprodrom, please review
17:39:26 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: has everyone chimed in on the proposal who will like to?
17:39:40 [cwebber2]
is everyone chimed in who would like to make a decision?
17:39:46 [AnnB]
17:40:00 [elf-pavlik]
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 [tantek]
17:40:15 [Loqi]
justincaseweneedit has -1 karma
17:40:17 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: accept PR #199
17:40:44 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so we're at 10:40, we have two other AS2.0 discussions
17:40:54 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: as:Like vs as:like
17:41:08 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: first is about likes, as:Like vs as:like
17:41:08 [eprodrom]
elf-pavlik, please explain
17:41:09 [elf-pavlik]
i couldn't join call due to missing host code for dial out :(
17:41:17 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: elf-pavlik, please explain
17:41:33 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: elf-pavlik, how would you like to proceed
17:41:35 [elf-pavlik]
i would invite everyone to read email and social-vocab illustration and prepare for discussing it in 2 weeks
17:41:36 [csarven]
He suggested earlier that we can put it off to the next meeting
17:41:37 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: you can type or make proposal
17:41:40 [eprodrom]
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 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: or we can defer until next week
17:41:52 [elf-pavlik]
in *2 weeks* ?
17:41:56 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: ok we'll move to next week
17:42:09 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: next proposal also proposed by elf-pavlik
17:42:12 [eprodrom]
elf-pavlik, shall we move the next proposal to next week?
17:42:14 [Arnaud]
right, s/next week/next call/
17:42:16 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: would like to move next proposal to next week
17:42:22 [elf-pavlik]
our wiki currently says "2015-09-08 Telecon (no 2015-09-01 call) chair: Tantek"
17:42:23 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: yes I'm sorry, next call not next week
17:42:28 [jasnell]
fyi... I will not be here for the next call
17:42:36 [elf-pavlik]
17:42:40 [jasnell]
will be attending NodeConfEU
17:42:44 [eprodrom]
elf-pavlik, waiting for your response to move on
17:42:49 [elf-pavlik]
i put it there after exchanging emails with harry on mailing list
17:43:09 [elf-pavlik]
yes lets postpone it for when we get hold of webex host code
17:43:21 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: in absence of response, will move it to sep 8th timeframe
17:43:32 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: Social API user stories
17:43:34 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: would like to move on to next topic about social apis user stories
17:43:45 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: AnnB asked that we discuss these user stories
17:43:51 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so AnnB ?
17:44:15 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
AnnB: so users could agree with user stories esp with relatively minor objections
17:44:37 [cwebber2]
AnnB: we have to have the people who are the objectors engage
17:44:51 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
AnnB: I guess we're coming towards end of summer schedule so
17:45:12 [eprodrom]
17:45:13 [cwebber2]
AnnB: but is it useful for working group to try to resolve the user stories
17:45:25 [tantek]
I thought that was going to happen last week - but heard nothing
17:45:43 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: are we trying to resolve those also
17:45:52 [tantek]
17:45:59 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: or also -1 or -0s
17:46:08 [cwebber2]
AnnB: we were focusing on "minor objections" stories
17:46:11 [eprodrom]
17:46:26 [cwebber2]
AnnB: when you read the objections they tend to be about language nuances rather than about whole concept of the story
17:46:38 [cwebber2]
AnnB: so it seems relatively easy to resolve those objections
17:47:28 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
tantek: not sure how to resolve, but want to raise
17:48:00 [cwebber2]
tantek: consternation around inbox problem is an example
17:48:20 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: suggestions on how to proceed, here are examples with not all +1s but +1s and 0s
17:48:35 [tantek]
indeed we should look at the 0s
17:48:40 [tantek]
and see why
17:48:41 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: we have not accepted those, Annb is it your understanding we can or should? i thin kwe should
17:48:56 [cwebber2]
Annb: i'm looking for indication on what the IG should tdo that's valuable and supports the IG
17:49:13 [rhiaro]
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 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
annb: and question raised, how rigid are these, are they locked in stone or?
17:49:38 [eprodrom]
17:49:44 [tantek]
17:50:03 [Loqi]
Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-29]]
17:50:09 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: this is the magic list
17:50:17 [elf-pavlik]
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 [cwebber2]
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 [rhiaro]
I like what elf-pavlik said
17:50:38 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: we do need to get to a sorting process
17:50:46 [cwebber2]
17:50:56 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I think SWAT0 was an important one
17:51:09 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: second one was a sorting user stories entirely postiive, we accepted all of those
17:51:18 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: what we haven't accepted are the other ones on those page
17:51:35 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: if there's a process, I think a process as a group would be proposing then accepting those stories
17:51:42 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I think it would be unlikely to do it in a different way
17:51:45 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
17:51:53 [cwebber2]
tantek: no problem
17:52:00 [cwebber2]
AnnB: I have a quesiton, can I clarify
17:52:01 [elf-pavlik]
+q to ask if accepting a story *obligates* us to show working implementation based on delivered specs before claiming victory?
17:52:27 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
AnnB: user posts a note, reading ((?))
17:53:04 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
annb: so we don't want to do work that's not valuable
17:53:56 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
17:54:04 [cwebber2]
annb: seems interesting to work on, but if not valuable it's not valuable
17:54:13 [cwebber2]
annb: also sound is breaking up fo rme, not sure for everyone else
17:55:21 [cwebber2]
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 [cwebber2]
tantek: the traditional way is traditional w3c thing is if nobody objects move forward
17:55:41 [cwebber2]
tantek: but I said that's a bad way to move forward
17:56:44 [cwebber2]
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 [jasnell]
dropping. have another call I need to prep for
17:56:57 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I understand that, that's a reasonable way to sort them, but there is like 100 of them
17:57:08 [cwebber2]
annb: yeah evan, aren't the sortings that ben_thatmustbeme were like that
17:57:21 [elf-pavlik]
17:57:31 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: yes but tantek is saying whether or not the ???
17:57:41 [cwebber2]
tantek: I was just answering annb's question
17:57:54 [eprodrom]
17:57:58 [cwebber2]
tantek: I was just saying, pick at ones that have ones that have more +1s, rather than "least objections"
17:58:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:58:16 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: sorry to do this but will jump to front of queue
17:58:22 [AnnB]
17:58:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:58:24 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I'm going to propose we extend by 10 mintues
17:58:25 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: 10 minute extension of meeting
17:58:28 [cwebber2]
17:58:29 [elf-pavlik]
17:58:32 [tantek]
17:58:35 [eprodrom]
17:58:40 [rhiaro]
17:58:48 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber
17:59:01 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: 10 minute extension of meeting
17:59:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
17:59:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
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 [rhiaro]
18:00:03 [Loqi]
cwebber has 3 karma
18:00:08 [rhiaro]
18:00:11 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 42 karma
18:00:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
maybe the best thing for the IG to do is to find those that are most likely to resolve, and make edits as needed and propose them back to the WG
18:01:03 [eprodrom]
18:01:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
AnnB: We were accepting the catagorization that ben_thatmustbeme was working with and we were just going down that list. I think what you are proposing is to go through the list and just find those most likely to resolve
18:01:22 [sandroTesting]
sandroTesting has joined #social
18:01:24 [cwebber2]
AnnB: that sounds good, we were accepting the categorization ben_thatmustbeme came up with, we started with the minor objection group and bring them forward
18:01:53 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so I gave an example of one that has mostly approval, but it had "why not do this but do text", and easy resolution is "just do text", but you do need some responsiveness from the people who did the objection
18:02:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: cwebber2
18:02:25 [cwebber2]
AnnB: you're describing what we think is a good process, we don't want to make a resolution for tantek on how to fix it, we'd ask him how he thinks we can resolve that
18:02:51 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so maybe a process we can use is that the IG will continue to go through these, and at intervals where there are issues resolved, we can bring back to the WG, and we can vote to accept / not accept
18:03:03 [cwebber2]
AnnB: main request I have from the WG, we need to talk to you
18:03:16 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: ask the IG to continue to resolve objections and propose user stories for acceptance
18:03:17 [cwebber2]
AnnB: we're happy to coordinate, but we need that kind of support from individual objectors
18:03:37 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: (repeats proposal above), does that sound reasonable?
18:03:47 [cwebber2]
AnnB: yes with the caveat that participants must help resolve
18:03:51 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: ask the IG to continue to resolve objections with the help of WG members and propose user stories for acceptance
18:03:55 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: how about this one ^^^
18:04:08 [elf-pavlik]
we can agree to void objection if person objecting not engages in clarifying them (via github as we agreed) in timely manner < 1 week delay
18:04:16 [AnnB]
18:04:18 [eprodrom]
18:04:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:04:20 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: cna I get a straw poll?
18:04:21 [cwebber2]
18:04:21 [rhiaro]
18:04:23 [wilkie]
18:04:24 [elf-pavlik]
18:04:32 [csarven]
18:04:39 [tsyesika]
18:04:39 [sandro]
18:04:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
though i would say, if you don't get a response from some individuals, still propose edits, may still be worth the work put in to it
18:04:52 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I'm getting all +1s so that looks strong
18:05:00 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: ask the IG to continue to resolve objections with the help of WG members and propose user stories for acceptance
18:05:03 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: I agree ben_thatmustbeme, if the IG feels comfortable with ti
18:05:27 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so great thanks so much AnnB
18:05:35 [elf-pavlik]
18:05:36 [rhiaro]
AnnB: good point, I'll review
18:05:38 [Loqi]
AnnB has 29 karma
18:05:40 [cwebber2]
AnnB: I want to also ask if anyone has a particular story to resolve, point us at it
18:05:54 [cwebber2]
AnnB: IG is continuing,
18:06:02 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so ??? would be a good time to help resolve
18:06:19 [cwebber2]
AnnB: our meeting on wedsnesays is 1 hour earlier than this, for west coast it was a bit early and in europe a bit late
18:06:25 [cwebber2]
AnnB: but we'll do whatever
18:06:38 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: if you can keep us up to date as time changes
18:06:43 [cwebber2]
AnnB: we'll ping individuals
18:06:49 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: awesome, thanks so much AnnB
18:07:04 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: great, well I feel like we got to a resolution here, if there are no objections would like to close up the meeting
18:07:13 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: if that seems reasonable, thanks all for coming
18:07:19 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
18:07:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:07:19 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
18:07:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:07:21 [elf-pavlik]
18:07:21 [cwebber2]
AnnB: thanks, and thank you eprodrom !
18:07:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:07:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:07:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:07:28 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items