17:03:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
17:03:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/08-social-irc
17:03:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:03:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
17:03:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:03:28 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:03:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:03:29 <trackbot> Date: 08 September 2015
17:04:01 <tantek> zakim, who is here?
17:04:01 <Zakim> Present: (no one)
17:04:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, csarven, tilgovi, tantek, cwebber2, melvster1, elf-pavlik, the_frey, pdurbin, KevinMarks, oshepherd, dwhly, rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, Loqi, slvrbckt,
17:04:02 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat, bret, aaronpk, tommorris_, tessierashpool_, wilkie, tsyesika, raucao, ElijahLynn, sandro, trackbot, wseltzer
17:04:05 <ben_thatmustbeme> lunch ran late, connecting now
17:04:15 <tantek> present+ tantek
17:04:16 <csarven> present+ csarven
17:04:18 <csarven> present+ sandro
17:04:28 <elf-pavlik> present+ elf-pavlik
17:04:31 <tantek> zakim, who is here?
17:04:31 <Zakim> Present: tantek, csarven, sandro, elf-pavlik
17:04:32 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, csarven, tilgovi, tantek, cwebber2, melvster1, elf-pavlik, the_frey, pdurbin, KevinMarks, oshepherd, dwhly, rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, Loqi, slvrbckt,
17:04:32 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat, bret, aaronpk, tommorris_, tessierashpool_, wilkie, tsyesika, raucao, ElijahLynn, sandro, trackbot, wseltzer
17:04:33 <aaronpk> present+ aaronpk
17:04:45 <rhiaro> Google Voice is telling me 'correct the number', not sure what I'm doing wrong this time
17:06:47 <rhiaro> present+ rhiaro
17:07:00 <rhiaro> Sure
17:07:07 <tantek> scribe: rhiaro
17:07:08 <rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
17:07:17 <elf-pavlik> rhiaro++
17:07:19 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-25-minutes
17:07:21 <Loqi> rhiaro has 155 karma
17:07:29 <csarven> +1
17:07:29 <rhiaro> TOPIC: Approval of last weeek's minutes
17:07:35 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:07:35 <rhiaro> +1
17:07:49 <rhiaro> tantek: Resolved, approval of minutes
17:07:56 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-10-29
17:07:59 <rhiaro> TOPIC: F2F at TPppAC
17:08:17 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+ ben_thatmustbeme
17:08:48 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
17:08:52 <elf-pavlik> ben_thatmustbeme++
17:08:55 <Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 111 karma
17:09:26 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: we discussed the F2F last meeting and were hoping by today we would know if we had enough participants
17:09:35 <tsyesika> present+ tsyesika
17:09:57 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... looking at the current participants list, I don't see updates from AnnB, or aaronpk
17:10:09 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... aaronpk do you have any new info?
17:10:18 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: its still in progress unfortunately
17:11:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: anyone else? right now we only have 4 confirmed and rhiaro and csarven are dependant on
17:11:09 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... sandro
17:11:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... unless we have some update by the end of the call we are likely going to have to cancel
17:11:35 <csarven> Sounds reasonable to me.
17:11:44 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... does anyone else have anything to update, I'm hoping to be corrected but it looks like only option
17:12:03 <rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
17:12:16 <cwebber2> I am more likely able to do that
17:12:18 <rhiaro> tantek: We had discussed having a separate face to face maybe in the US, where more people can make it
17:12:27 <rhiaro> ... Maybe everyone could start thinking about when and where they could do that
17:12:32 <cwebber2> I'll probably be in boston near the end of the month but that's too soon for everyone I'm sure :)
17:12:38 <rhiaro> ... We would like participation from chairs and everyone who is editing a document, and everyone who is implmeenting
17:12:44 <rhiaro> ... THese are they key people to have at a meeting
17:12:55 <rhiaro> sandro: I could send an email or a doodle poll to figure out..
17:13:09 <rhiaro> tantek: If we have enough information to start a doodle poll, go ahead. I don't feel like I have enough. Otherwise send an email.
17:13:13 <rhiaro> sandro: What more information?
17:13:18 <elf-pavlik> location first?
17:13:19 <rhiaro> tantek: Even a range of dates to choose among?
17:13:38 <rhiaro> sandro: We're supposed to give 8 weeks notice, so assuming we pick a week from today that starts us week of Nov 10th
17:13:59 <rhiaro> ... Presumably we don't want to hold it thanksgiving. That's two weeks before thanksgiving, a week or so after thanksgiving
17:15:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
17:15:17 <csarven> rhiaro Audio is still okay fo rme.
17:15:21 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: lets action sandro to narrow down possible date ranges for next F2F
17:15:53 <tantek> ACTION: sandro narrow down possible date ranges for next F2F
17:15:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Narrow down possible date ranges for next f2f [on Sandro Hawke - due 2015-09-15].
17:16:27 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-08#Activity_Streams_2.0
17:16:27 <ben_thatmustbeme> TOPIC: Activity Streams 2.0
17:17:13 <tantek> issue 1: "as:Like (an rdfs:Class) or as:like (an rdf:Property)?"
17:17:15 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: we have a couple of issues raised by elf-pavlik, before we deep dive into these on telconf we should make sure we have people effected by these on the telcon or don't waste time on this telcon
17:17:21 <elf-pavlik> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-vocab/wiki/Verbs---owl:Class-vs.-rdf:Property
17:17:32 <elf-pavlik> me :)
17:17:34 <csarven> +q
17:17:40 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... are there any implementors here impacted by this issue on the telconf?
17:17:51 <csarven> Sort of..
17:18:16 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... if its only elf-pavlik being effected, not sure its best to discuss here
17:19:05 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I looked at the information on this issue, but did not see any link to any implementation actually blocked by the issue.  I would recommend that you include links to that issue
17:19:18 <tantek> next issue: "Represent bidirectional connections "
17:19:24 <tantek> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/180
17:19:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... moving on to the next issue
17:19:43 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I don't understand, this issue says closed
17:19:58 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... is there a different issue relating to this elf?
17:20:15 <ben_thatmustbeme> elf-pavlik: no, i don't see this issue as resolved, james just closed the issue
17:20:42 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: I think that sounds like a different issue should be pointed to or re-opened.
17:21:01 <ben_thatmustbeme> elf-pavlik: I will propose for next week that we need to figure out workflow for github issues
17:21:05 <cwebber2> I'm not enough in rdf-land to be sure I'm impacted
17:21:19 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: same question as before applies, who on the call, is impacted by this issue?
17:21:24 <elf-pavlik> q+ re: implementers on the call
17:21:53 <tantek> q?
17:21:59 <tantek> ack csarven
17:22:01 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I think this should be iterated on asyncronously until there are more implementors on the call
17:22:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick rhiaro
17:22:30 <rhiaro> scarven: first of all, unclear on issues, lots of crossreferencing going on across eamils and github
17:22:38 <rhiaro> s/scarven/csarven
17:22:51 <rhiaro> ... I think what elf is                           trying to raise is important for AS2
17:23:07 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
17:23:20 <elf-pavlik> i'll create new issue for it on gh!
17:23:42 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: thats why i was asking if there is any implementors on the call, since James is not here, it doesn't really make sense to discuss
17:24:23 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I think this should be clarified as to what part of the spec actually has an issue, the discussion is more conceptual and less concrete
17:24:39 <ben_thatmustbeme> elf-pavlik: I will try to clarify for next week and hopefully james will be on the call
17:24:52 <csarven> More about the model
17:24:53 <rhiaro> I tried to figure out some of this stuff, but I think definitely better understood by actual implementation. Be good to see examples of options implemented.
17:25:04 <tantek> q?
17:25:06 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: specifically i'd recommend you try to get much clearer on what specific parts of the spec are effected
17:25:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> elf-pavlik: I wanted to clarify the approach of asking for implementors on the call since only james implements a library.  I think we can discuss the approach before we implement
17:26:00 <csarven> csarven has left #social
17:26:07 <csarven> csarven has joined #social
17:26:19 <csarven> present+ csarven
17:26:33 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... specifically this deals with how we model, i don't think we need to have implementors on the call
17:27:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: they could be implementING, don't have to have implmentED.  so its who feels this would effect them
17:27:05 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-08#Social_API
17:27:06 <ben_thatmustbeme> moving on
17:27:12 <ben_thatmustbeme> topic: Social API
17:27:17 <tantek> "User Stories -- what are the implications of a story being "accepted"? "
17:27:18 <elf-pavlik> q-
17:27:37 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: question was raised as to what are the implications of a story being "accepted"
17:27:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: amy are you back on to take over as scribe?
17:28:11 <ben_thatmustbeme> I'm willing to let elf-pavlik introduce
17:28:23 <melvster1> FYI: there 519 +1 votes -- "will implement"
17:28:47 <ben_thatmustbeme> elf-pavlik: we have had back and forth on what are the consequences of accepting a user story
17:29:20 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: that should be documented at the social api page
17:29:28 <rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
17:29:43 <rhiaro> tantek: We were talking about what should be in the social api. We had research on what proprietary social APIs do, all on the wiki
17:29:55 <rhiaro> ... Evan then proposed a list of social api requirements, based on a union of all those proprietary APIs
17:30:03 <rhiaro> ... The group decided that was far beyond what we needed to do for a v1
17:30:11 <elf-pavlik> link to minutes?
17:30:22 <rhiaro> ... Instead of using a list of derived reqs from existing sites like that, we wanted to base the requirements on user stories that the group was interested in solving
17:30:34 <rhiaro> ... That led to the proposal of user stories, and voting on them
17:30:44 <rhiaro> ... After that ben_thatmustbeme sorted them by different clusters
17:31:02 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories
17:31:06 <ben_thatmustbeme> elf-pavlik, i have all the minutes downloaded, i can grep across them for that week to link you to probably
17:31:14 <ben_thatmustbeme> after the meeting that is
17:31:20 <rhiaro> ... After that, or even before that, we agreed that swat0 was one of our foundational user stories
17:31:26 <rhiaro> ... Then we agreed to accept the user stories that were all +1
17:31:31 <ben_thatmustbeme> not at this computer
17:31:34 <rhiaro> ... Leaving the rest to the IG to attempt to resolve these issues on
17:31:44 <hhalpin> hhalpin has joined #social
17:31:53 <rhiaro> ... The implication there being that the purpose of the user stories is to drive rquireemnts for the API, so the accepted user stories would be used to dtermine those requirements
17:32:09 <rhiaro> ... Maybe that's the next step, to say given these user stories what does that say about reqs for API
17:32:12 <rhiaro> ... That's how we got to where we are
17:32:27 <rhiaro> <rhiaro> I tried the reqs from user stories doc
17:32:46 <rhiaro> sandro: We should avoid being legalistic about it. Anyone designing an api should have in mind the things that everyone seems to want it to do
17:33:00 <melvster1> sandro++
17:33:03 <rhiaro> ... Not an agreement that we will only consider things that will only meet all of these criteria, and have some kind of formal thing
17:33:04 <Loqi> sandro has 23 karma
17:33:09 <ben_thatmustbeme> we should probably be written on the site, or at least linked anywhere there is a list of "approved" user stories
17:33:13 <rhiaro> ... Makes people panic and argue in a way that doesn't reflect reality
17:33:18 <rhiaro> ... We should keep it more descriptive than prescriptive
17:33:22 <elf-pavlik> q+
17:33:25 <rhiaro> ... But that's my perspective, not always how people want to do things
17:33:29 <rhiaro> tantek: I think your perspective is accurate
17:33:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro++
17:33:35 <Loqi> sandro has 24 karma
17:33:37 <elf-pavlik> sandro++
17:33:41 <Loqi> sandro has 25 karma
17:33:55 <rhiaro> tantek: I think the user stories list and voting was an attempt to narrow absolute list and requirements
17:34:04 <tantek> q?
17:34:05 <rhiaro> ... These are good inputs to what a social api SHOULD have rather than MUST have is a good interpretation
17:34:08 <tantek> ack elf-pavlik
17:34:11 <rhiaro> ... That's my understanding as to how we got here
17:34:44 <rhiaro> elf-pavlik: I get frustrated that you and sandro see differently. You said it's to narrow the absolute requirement, and sandro said it's more about getting general idea of what people want, not absolute
17:35:10 <rhiaro> ... So we don't look for this absolute requirement or hard line, but what we can expect others to give attention to, and maybe we should focus furst on things that are of common interest, and not feel discouraged about pursuing things that are less of common interest
17:35:23 <rhiaro> ... We should document this, and why do we have a formal process of accepting and not accepting, seems we have a different understanding
17:35:32 <rhiaro> tantek: your point about prioritising what seems to be common wants is a good one
17:35:45 <rhiaro> ... Certainly the tone in the group has shifted from the earlier days when we were trying to require all of these things
17:35:54 <rhiaro> ... Now people are implementing it's clear that there's a lot of work to be done
17:36:09 <rhiaro> ... Totally fine to move in that direction. What sandro described makes sense, without trying to compel what goes into a draft
17:36:14 <rhiaro> ... The more we canminimise the MUSTs the better
17:36:18 <hhalpin> +1 should, be we need interop over a small set of minimal functionality
17:36:21 <rhiaro> ... Makes it easier to write a spec, test suite, go to CR
17:36:28 <hhalpin> for the CR test-suite
17:36:34 <rhiaro> elf-pavlike: Maybe we don't need this process for accepting user stories?
17:36:43 <rhiaro> tantek: We need to know what anyone wants
17:36:46 <melvster1> people are not implementing ... there were 519 +1s meaning "will implement" ... but only a small fraction of those voters followed through ...
17:37:05 <rhiaro> sandro: I lean against a formal process. We can base it on observation of votes. People can change their votes if priorities change
17:37:14 <rhiaro> tantek: Does anyone know what melvin means by 519 +1s?
17:37:19 <rhiaro> ... I don't udnerstand what that's about
17:37:33 <melvster1> the user story voting, I counted the +1s
17:37:33 <rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: I'm guessing he jsut counted all the +1s between all the votes?
17:37:46 <rhiaro> ... Because it was originally that +1 was labelled as 'plan to implement'
17:37:51 <rhiaro> tantek: THat's a misinterpretation
17:38:01 <rhiaro> ... just because someone +1ed doesn't mean they were planning to implement
17:38:01 <melvster1> ok, it's on the page still
17:38:09 <rhiaro> ... Some people noted they would implement, but +1 doesn't mean that
17:38:15 <rhiaro> ... Going to treat that as misreading documentation
17:38:21 <aaronpk> melvster1, what are you using to determine whether someone is implementing? I am implementing things and still plan to implement things that I have not started yet, so not really sure what point you're trying to make
17:38:27 <rhiaro> <rhiaro> For the record.. https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Requirements
17:38:39 <melvster1> +1 "yes, I need it, will implement, worth doing"
17:38:48 <rhiaro> tantek: Whether user stories are useful to accept or not, it's to help understand what's common interests
17:38:51 <melvster1> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories
17:38:59 <rhiaro> ... Just because we're moving away from MUST to SHOULD doesn't mean we throw everything out
17:39:13 <rhiaro> ... If you can't describe some api functionality in terms of user story, probably means you shouldn't have it
17:39:19 <rhiaro> ... To stop draft ballooning out of control with every feature request
17:39:27 <ben_thatmustbeme> melvster1, probably you should read those ,'s as ORs
17:39:31 <ben_thatmustbeme> not ANDs
17:39:37 <rhiaro> elf-pavlik: Will we continue process of trying to formally +1 and accept? Or keep it around as a reference but no more formalising?
17:39:49 <rhiaro> tantek: Depends on what desires the different impelentors have?
17:40:01 <rhiaro> ... Are there user stories that people are implementing that go beyond the scope of what is already approved or not?
17:40:14 <rhiaro> ... As I hear, even the user storeis that are accepted are a lot of work, so we don't need more
17:40:28 <rhiaro> ... I strongly suggest that if you're implementing something you focus on what's already been approved, instead of trying to add more work
17:40:43 <rhiaro> ... When someone is willing to declare victory on implementing all the accepted user stories, we can have this discussion again
17:40:56 <rhiaro> melvster1, I read the ',' in "yes, I need..." as OR rather than AND
17:41:09 <tantek> q?
17:41:23 <rhiaro> tantek: ben, anything to add about implications of user stories?
17:41:31 <rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: I guess not, mostly covered
17:41:54 <rhiaro> ... A lot of this came out of people trying to implement those exactly. We need to make it known that people don't need to implement every exact thing. Not specs, just reference for guiding us.
17:42:14 <rhiaro> tantek: What do people think about that? Implementors should take the user stories as useful functionality, but not a precise step by step requirement
17:42:22 <elf-pavlik> q?
17:42:54 <rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: exactly
17:42:57 <rhiaro> sandro: I guess I wonder why that is?
17:43:29 <tantek> zakim, who is noisy?
17:43:29 <Zakim> I am sorry, tantek; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now
17:43:30 <rhiaro> sandro: If you ahve 3 different implementors demoing user stories, and two do it one way and one is different, that seems like it's going to cause confusion and problems
17:43:57 <rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: The problem is that we didn't read these user stories as exact specifications. If I went back and voted on them that way it woudl be different. We ended up arguing about 'inbox' terminology
17:44:06 <rhiaro> sandro: Terminology doesn't affect code, so terminology aside, what else?
17:44:22 <rhiaro> tantek: I  don't think we can avoid people misinterpreting a user stories
17:44:44 <rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: I didn't go through these thinking of them as specs. The functionality of being able to like something is different to having a button on a site below a post
17:44:56 <rhiaro> ... If we start reading them as technical documents, you have to follow exactly what they say
17:45:06 <rhiaro> ... It's important to tell people that's not what these are, because they were not gone over that way
17:45:18 <rhiaro> ... We should not say this is approved, this is perfect, you should implement exactly like this
17:45:23 <rhiaro> ... that may not make sense
17:45:36 <rhiaro> sandro: If we say that these are not to be understood precisely, we've muddied the waters without gving any new guidence
17:45:41 <rhiaro> tantek: not if that's hwo we all interpret them
17:45:43 <elf-pavlik> q+ re: IG ambition to 'clarify' those stories and need for it
17:46:02 <rhiaro> ... If the folks that voted on them initially did not interpret them with thta precision, it does not seem reasonable to assert that precision now
17:46:07 <hhalpin> I imagine the 'precision' will come out in the test-suite, right?
17:46:13 <rhiaro> sandro: I agree with that, just trying to find something more useful than handwaving around it
17:46:30 <rhiaro> ... My proposal would be that anyone that thinks this goes back to change their plus ones to clarify this
17:46:43 <hhalpin> It seems this 'terminology' issue might be making a mountain out of a molehill.
17:46:44 <rhiaro> ... I'm fine with saying terminololy everywhere is not rigid
17:46:48 <csarven> q+ re: too much confusion over semantics right now. Without implementation , it is hard to tell
17:46:55 <rhiaro> ... But other things. Seems more useful than just saying don't take any of this stuff literally
17:47:13 <rhiaro> tantek: Let's at least put that proposal... let the user stories be interpreted as stheir functionality, not their terminology
17:47:15 <rhiaro> sandro: I'm cool with that
17:47:24 <rhiaro> tantek: Does that reflect at least part of your concern, ben?
17:47:28 <rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: certainly
17:47:32 <rhiaro> tantek: any objections?
17:47:41 <rhiaro> q?
17:47:54 <rhiaro> tantek: if you have objections, -1 in IRC
17:47:58 <rhiaro> ... This is a specific proposal
17:48:08 <rhiaro> ... Then we'll go to the queue
17:48:15 <rhiaro> tantek: Let's at least put that proposal... let the user stories be interpreted as stheir functionality, not their terminology
17:48:33 <tantek> +1
17:48:33 <csarven> +1
17:48:35 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:48:35 <cwebber2> +1
17:48:36 <cwebber2> seems good
17:48:37 <rhiaro> PROPOSAL: User stories are interpreted as their functionality, not by terminology
17:48:38 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:48:38 <rhiaro> +1
17:48:39 <tsyesika> +1
17:48:40 <rhiaro> sandro: +1
17:48:57 <rhiaro> RESOLVED: User stories are interpreted as their functionality, not by terminology
17:49:04 <csarven> q-
17:49:13 <rhiaro> tantek: Hopefully thsi will resolve literal interpretation problems in future
17:49:24 <rhiaro> tantek: Next issue is, inbox user story was overinterpreted
17:49:36 <rhiaro> ... I don't think we can avoid that, people are going to interpret things however they want, people are looking for guidence wherever they can get it
17:49:49 <rhiaro> ... Okay if osmeone wants to literally implement a user story, but not okay to demand others do so
17:49:57 <rhiaro> ... I believe saying the functionality is the focus makes that clear
17:50:05 <rhiaro> ... To avoid these arguements by literal text in the future
17:50:08 <tantek> q?
17:50:12 <rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: I think that'll take care of it
17:50:12 <tantek> ack elf-pavlik
17:50:12 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss IG ambition to 'clarify' those stories and need for it
17:50:30 <rhiaro> elf-pavlik: I would like to see if we give feedback to the interest group, who I hope will get more active now
17:50:48 <rhiaro> ... They need to know if they should put effort into resolving issues to get them accepted
17:51:19 <rhiaro> ... If we want to continue process of formal approval and have IG put effort into clarifying those stories so they can be formally approved, we still need to write down clear criteria of what acceptance implies
17:51:41 <rhiaro> ... If it's just for understanding each other, we don't need all this strong effort into formal acceptance process, with people putting effort from IG into this
17:52:01 <rhiaro> tantek: THere have been several times people have stated that it's useful to have a set of user stories that are accepted to prioritise common interests
17:52:08 <rhiaro> ... Many people have indicated why that's useful
17:52:24 <rhiaro> ... As far as trying to provide criteria to the IG, I don't see why that's necessary in terms of what the user stories are used for
17:52:33 <rhiaro> ... The request of the IG is to go through 0s and -1s on user stories and resolve them
17:52:42 <ben_thatmustbeme> q+
17:52:57 <rhiaro> ... That is to contact people objecting or being neutral about a user story, finding out why, seeing if it's possibe to resolve, ideally with original author of user story
17:53:08 <rhiaro> ... It doesn't need anything more than that. Focus on those votes and those people, resolve them one by one.
17:53:17 <rhiaro> ... Anyone here from the IG to take that action?
17:53:20 <rhiaro> ... AnnB is not here
17:53:26 <rhiaro> ... Anyone an active participant in IG to take that action?
17:53:28 <tantek> q?
17:53:54 <rhiaro> <rhiaro> When the IG did try to do thsi a while back, WG members didn't respond well
17:54:15 <melvster> melvster has joined #social
17:54:17 <rhiaro> tantek: Not hearing anyone step forward to take this action to the IG, so going to postpone. elf, you can try bringing this up again in the future. Unless we get IG participatns in the WG, we're not going to get progress on this
17:54:27 <rhiaro> ... If you want to drive that, you need to drive it in the IG yourself
17:54:31 <tantek> q?
17:54:34 <tantek> ack ben_thatmustbeme
17:55:03 <rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: Going to suggest that maybe the idea of having a formal approve/deny might be easier to do just as once we all agree on it, everyone is +1, then it's implicitly approved
17:55:13 <elf-pavlik> +1 ben_thatmustbeme
17:55:16 <rhiaro> ... This takes away any work on us to waste conference call time to put forward to proposals to approve
17:55:24 <rhiaro> ... If everyone agrees they see it as useful, it's implicitly accepted
17:55:52 <rhiaro> tantek: appreciate the optimism. If those vote changes occur based on changes to user stories, I think it's reasonable to have to raise those user stories to everyone else who might have voted, to make sure that their votes don't change
17:56:05 <rhiaro> ... So we're not specifically asking everyone to go vote again, just trying to resolve non +1 votes with edits
17:56:13 <rhiaro> ... With the optimistic assumption that everyone who voted +1 won't change their vote
17:56:27 <rhiaro> ... But we have to challenge that assumption by bringing it up in a telecon to check for objections
17:56:34 <rhiaro> ... Don't want to edit user stories from underneath people without them being notified
17:56:41 <ben_thatmustbeme> makes sense
17:56:50 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-08#Tracking_of_Actions_and_Issues
17:56:53 <tantek> q?
17:56:59 <rhiaro> TOPIC: Tracking of actions and issues
17:57:00 <tantek> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/raised - none
17:57:04 <rhiaro> tantek: 0 raised issues
17:57:08 <tantek> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/pendingreview - none
17:57:13 <rhiaro> ... 0 pending review issues
17:57:18 <rhiaro> ... 0 pending review actions either
17:57:22 <tantek> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/pendingreview - none
17:57:31 <rhiaro> ... Next telecon is next week
17:57:38 <tantek> q?
17:57:39 <rhiaro> ... 15th, Arnaud chairing
17:57:50 <rhiaro> ... Any other issues that anyone wants to raise in last 2 minutes?
17:58:07 <tantek> q?
17:58:36 <rhiaro> ... We're cancelling the face to face at tpac unfortunately as people can't make it
17:58:43 <rhiaro> ... We'll follow up with a doodle poll to figure out when we can meet next
17:58:44 <elf-pavlik> tantek++
17:58:46 <rhiaro> ... Thanks everyone
17:58:47 <Loqi> tantek has 237 karma
17:58:48 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek++
17:58:51 <elf-pavlik> thanks rhiaro!!!
17:58:51 <tantek> rhiaro++ for minuting
17:58:52 <Loqi> tantek has 238 karma
17:58:55 <Loqi> rhiaro has 156 karma
17:58:58 <ben_thatmustbeme> rhiaro++
17:59:01 <Loqi> rhiaro has 157 karma
18:04:39 <rhiaro> RRSAgent, make minutes public
18:04:39 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', rhiaro.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:04:48 <rhiaro> I swear this thing changes every week.
18:05:04 <aaronpk> Loqi: tell RRSAgent to make the minutes
18:05:34 <csarven> "Let my <del>people</del><ins>minutes</ins> go"
18:07:09 <rhiaro> Zakim, make minutes public
18:07:09 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes public', rhiaro
18:07:19 <rhiaro> Anyone, make minutes public??
18:07:30 <rhiaro> RRSAgent, help
18:07:36 <rhiaro> oops, sorry
18:07:45 <rhiaro> RRSAgent, shut up