17:02:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
17:02:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/22-social-irc
17:02:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:02:36 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
17:02:38 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:02:38 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:02:39 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:02:39 <trackbot> Date: 22 September 2015
17:02:44 <sandro> present+ sandro
17:02:51 <wseltzer> present+ wseltzer
17:02:51 <aaronpk> present+ aaronpk
17:02:56 <melvster> melvster has joined #social
17:03:12 <Arnaud> present+ Arnaud
17:03:13 <AnnB> present+ AnnB
17:03:29 <cwebber2> present+ cwebber2
17:03:42 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+ ben_thatmustbeme
17:03:44 <eprodrom> present+ eprodrom
17:04:54 <tsyesika> present+ tsyesika
17:05:07 <tantek> present+ tantek
17:05:18 <ben_thatmustbeme> I can scribe
17:05:28 <cwebber2> thank you ben_thatmustbeme
17:05:28 <eprodrom> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
17:05:29 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
17:05:35 <eprodrom> Ah there we go
17:06:08 <tantek> Agenda+ Next f2f Meeting Doodle
17:06:08 <tantek> will edit the wiki shortly
17:06:18 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-22
17:06:19 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: time to get started
17:06:35 <ben_thatmustbeme> topic: Approval of minutes from last week
17:06:36 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-15-minutes
17:06:48 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: accept minutes for 15 Sep 2015
17:07:06 <tantek> +1
17:07:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... any objections?
17:07:15 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: accept minutes for 15 Sep 2015
17:07:19 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... no objects, so lets mark that resolved
17:07:38 <cwebber2> +1 looks good
17:07:41 <ben_thatmustbeme> topic: charter update
17:08:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: our charter was approved by AC and went to w3m to then look at results
17:08:30 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... my understanding is that they have accepted it, but I don't know if there has been a public announcement
17:08:40 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... can sandro or wendy speak to this?
17:08:58 <AnnB> (AC = Advisory Committee = the company reps to W3C)
17:09:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: the text has been updated and the announcement hasn't been made yet, but that announcement wouldn't go to anyone but the advisory commitee
17:09:32 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter
17:09:45 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: so the URL has been updated? can we paste in chat
17:09:52 <tantek> http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html#licensing
17:10:02 <Loqi> Tantekelik made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-09-22]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85705&oldid=85702
17:10:02 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... if you reload that, you can see that it HAS changed from before
17:10:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... my understanding that because this is updated, our charter update is updated even though there isn't an announcement
17:10:40 <cwebber2> \o/
17:10:44 <cwebber2> whoooooooooo
17:10:46 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... this means we can publicly talk about it, congrats everyone
17:10:48 <cwebber2> yay for freedom
17:11:02 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... we had no, no votes, I feel i can share that
17:11:27 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: I guess this means we have wrapped up the charter update, and its helpful for us to know that our charter is still valid
17:11:41 <eprodrom> q?
17:11:46 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... anything else to discuss about the charter?
17:11:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... lets move on to
17:12:00 <hhalpin> hhalpin has joined #social
17:12:01 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-22#Social_Web_WG_F2F_Fall_2015
17:12:02 <eprodrom> TOPIC: F2F Doodle poll
17:12:04 <sandro> http://doodle.com/poll/sc29irgniqqseqtp#table
17:12:36 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... we have decided not to have our F2F meeting at TPAC so we are trying to decide next place and time
17:12:59 <eprodrom> http://doodle.com/poll/sc29irgniqqseqtp
17:12:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... these meetings are super helpful and we would like to get another one as soon
17:13:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... we have started a doodle poll for places and times for next F2F
17:13:25 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... sandro, i believe this was just sent to chairs and staff
17:13:40 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: yes, these are times that worked for staff and chairs
17:13:52 <tantek> please answer http://doodle.com/poll/sc29irgniqqseqtp ASAP!
17:14:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: we picked a number of locations, we are going to aim for san francisco, or boston for november
17:14:39 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... please update with your ability this week
17:14:47 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... we will be making a decision by next week
17:14:53 <eprodrom> q?
17:14:58 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... any other questions about F2F?
17:14:59 <sandro> sooner if we get answers from everyone who'se been participating  :)
17:15:16 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... the more answers we get, the better off we are
17:15:28 <eprodrom> TOPIC: Activity Streams 2.0
17:15:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> TOPIC: AS2.0
17:15:35 <tantek> q+
17:15:43 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: do we have james on the call today? looks like no
17:15:50 <eprodrom> ack tantek
17:16:33 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: I'm going to give an update on the last thing i heard from james, after telcon last week we conversed on IRC, we had agreed to publish another draft of AS2 using the new software doc license
17:17:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... gave an estimate of sept 24th or 25th, and since he is using new w3c system, he should be able to publish himself pretty quickly
17:17:13 <Arnaud> I confirm
17:17:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... but that is just my proxy of that conversation
17:17:29 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: he should be able to publish himself
17:17:42 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: without further intervention?
17:17:46 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: yes
17:17:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: he can do that at any time? not waiting for us?
17:18:05 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: we gave him auth last week
17:18:18 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: our intention is to do this monthly?
17:18:18 <eprodrom> q?
17:18:26 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: yes, that was our prev resolution
17:18:36 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: sounds like we are ready to go and its up to james on that
17:18:45 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... anything else to discuss on that topic?
17:19:00 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... we do have on the agenda to go to open issues, I'd like to come back
17:19:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... to that
17:19:22 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... any objects to pushing that to the end?
17:19:35 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... with that i'd like to move on to social API
17:19:36 <eprodrom> TOPIC: Social API
17:19:49 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: amy, are you on the phone?
17:19:52 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... or aaaron?
17:20:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: I am here
17:20:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: I was just talking with Amy about this, she wants to put together a schedule for us to make some progress on it in the next couple weeks
17:20:58 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... but we have not had a chance to take a crack at it yet.  but she is still on her way to moving over to the US
17:21:24 <AnnB> AnnB has joined #social
17:21:29 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: the idea is to put together a schedule for social API.  I'm assuming looking ahead toward F2F meeting at the end of Nov
17:21:35 <cwebber2> q+
17:21:39 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: that gives a good target for milestones
17:21:42 <eprodrom> ack cwebber2
17:21:51 <eprodrom> ack cwebber
17:22:26 <ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2: Amy and I talked abotu this as well, and one suggestion to move forward as the current progress is held back waiting on some implementation
17:23:33 <ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2: perhaps checking in with other groups to get someidea of progress
17:24:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2: as the different proposed social apis are being developed, we would consolidate against them as they are being developed and give regular updates
17:24:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: i believe we have some open issues around social API, but again, would like to move on first
17:25:08 <ben_thatmustbeme> topic: additional agenda items
17:25:32 <tantek> q+
17:25:49 <eprodrom> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web/wiki/Implementation-Phases
17:26:01 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: elf isn't here but he added an item that i think was to give a set of implementation phases for implementing the social web stack
17:26:23 <eprodrom> ack tantek
17:26:29 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... it looks like he has listed that, but since he's not here i'd like to postpone this until next week
17:26:48 <melvster> that implementation phases document looks great!
17:27:21 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: we did talk about this at last weeks telcon, and its a brainstorm that he has put forth and the feedback that i gave him is that its great to brainstorm publicly and let us know how that project management plan was working for his own implementation first
17:27:38 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-15-minutes#Additional_Topics
17:27:39 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I think everyone else has their own step forward with their own implementations
17:27:53 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... its recorded in last weeks minutes
17:28:08 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: i'm not sure why its on this agenda then
17:28:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: i was hoping it was to give us an update on success at it
17:28:47 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: it seems like the idea is that its for implementers who are getting started
17:28:47 <tantek> s/it was to/it was for elf to/
17:29:31 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: I'm not going to copy it to next weeks agenda, but i'm going to ask elf-pavlik to add that to the agenda if he has new information to report
17:29:45 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: he should add it to the agenda with info on what he has to report
17:29:56 <tantek> s/agenda if he has/agenda only if he has/
17:30:02 <eprodrom> q?
17:30:09 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: anything more to discuss about this implementation issue?
17:30:27 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... normally next we would move on to issues in the tracker
17:30:44 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-22#Tracking_of_Actions_and_Issues
17:31:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: as we look at the issues, i don't see anything that needs immediate attention of the group
17:31:52 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... rather than digging through all open issues, is there anyone has something to bring up on the tracker or github
17:32:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... now is the time to draw attention to important issues
17:32:05 <eprodrom> TOPIC: new and important issues
17:32:21 <eprodrom> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues
17:32:31 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: I can provide at leat a minor update on 1 issue
17:32:36 <tantek> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/4
17:32:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I am making good progress on issue 4 and hope to have a working draft for the group by next telcon
17:33:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... basically providing an algorithm for if you have this class you can imply this class
17:34:11 <tantek> working on an editor's draft of an algorithm for implicit typing
17:34:12 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... hopefully for consideration for publication
17:34:21 <tantek> to provide to WG by next telcon
17:34:27 <tantek> hoping WG to consider it for publication as a WD
17:34:41 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: we have activity streams open issues, and tracker issues
17:34:51 <eprodrom> cwebber2: http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/42
17:35:08 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... questions for cwebber2, you have an open issue with issue42 around duel licensing the Activity Streams spec
17:35:16 <melvster> Arnaud++
17:35:20 <Loqi> Arnaud has 25 karma
17:35:32 <eprodrom> dual not duel
17:35:33 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... i haven't looked very closely at the license, can you address this.  has the recent charter change fixed this?
17:35:40 <eprodrom> B-)
17:35:46 <wseltzer> q+
17:35:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2: I think this resolves it but have not fully delved in yet
17:36:21 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... if I remember correctly there is the needed text in there, and this can probably be closed
17:36:30 <eprodrom> "Permission to copy, modify, and distribute this work, with or without modification, for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the following on ALL copies of the work or portions thereof, including modifications:"
17:36:34 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... and i can reopen it if there is a problem
17:36:46 <eprodrom> ack wseltzer
17:37:26 <ben_thatmustbeme> wseltzer: one of our goals in adopting the document liscence was precisely for this type of compatability like this
17:37:43 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... its compatable with GPL, please use it and let me know if you have problems
17:37:47 <tantek> q+
17:38:09 <ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2: I wrote this up before the charter change, so I think I am all set to close the issue
17:38:41 <wseltzer> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document
17:39:00 <wseltzer> q+
17:39:07 <eprodrom> ack tantek
17:39:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: I have great respect for wseltzer on these matters, I only want to bring up that I haven't had a chance to have Mozilla team to review this and in the past Mozilla lawyers have disagreed with W3C lawyers on this matter
17:39:29 <AnnB> gee, that's disappointing to hear
17:39:30 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... Mozilla lawyers have yet to fully review
17:39:31 <eprodrom> ack wseltzer
17:40:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> wseltzer: this liscense says make a pointer to the text of the license and the FSF has previously said that the new license is GPL compatable, and I hope there will be no disagreement on this one
17:40:40 <wseltzer> [no, close the issue]
17:40:47 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: tantek, should we leave this open until with hear from Mozilla?
17:41:03 <wseltzer> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
17:41:05 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: I'm not asking that it be left open, I just wanted to give it as an FYI
17:41:06 <cwebber2> thank you wseltzer :)
17:41:13 <cwebber2> I'm excited for the change!
17:41:30 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... if there is new information in the future I will update
17:42:33 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... for Mozilla's purposes we need to be MPL compatible too, so I'm probably going to continue to publish CC0 so that Mozilla compatibility is fine
17:42:46 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... it may be more work for me, but should not slow anyone else down
17:42:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: I'm comfortable closing this
17:43:01 <tantek> FYI more background on Mozilla standards license thoughts: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Standards/license
17:43:06 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... any other issues we have open that we should be dicussing?
17:43:30 <AnnB> I don't understand this .. I thought Mozilla voted for this new license
17:43:37 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... a little difficult when we don't have james and others on the call to dicuss those issues
17:43:46 <AnnB> there was tons of discussion about that license
17:43:47 <tantek> AnnB - we voted for changing from the previous worse license to this improved license.
17:44:05 <tantek> it's a big step forwards, but it's also not yet at the level of CC0
17:44:13 <cwebber2> well
17:44:15 <tantek> we voted for progress - doesn't mean we're done
17:44:29 <eprodrom> Any additional F2F discussion?
17:44:31 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... can we come back to focus our attention on anything else its on F2F
17:44:33 <cwebber2> CC0 alone might not be great given the reasons it got blocked from the OSI list
17:44:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I think we have some candidates for hosting, anything else about these locations or times?
17:45:04 <eprodrom> q?
17:45:07 <tantek> cwebber2: AFAIK CC0 is also approved for software - not blocked
17:45:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... either of these times are pretty active travel times
17:45:16 <cwebber2> I say that as the person who fought for it to go on the FSF license list, marked as GPL compatible, and then submitted to the OSI
17:45:19 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... any other thoughts about F2F?
17:45:21 <cwebber2> and had that blow up in my face
17:45:35 <cwebber2> tantek: CC0 got withdrawn from OSI acceptance
17:45:37 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... any other topics that aren't currently on the agenda?
17:45:39 <cwebber2> spent a month of my life on it
17:45:46 <wseltzer> [this license says, take this work, and tell us that it's licensed this way. Is that so hard?]
17:45:46 <cwebber2> the reason being it explicitly reserves patent rights
17:45:49 <eprodrom> Open topics?
17:45:58 <AnnB> q+
17:46:15 <cwebber2> which destroys an equitable estoppel defense
17:46:18 <cwebber2> on patent grants
17:46:21 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: If we do the F2F in SF, well in either case, do we want to at that event, do a more outreachy kind of thing
17:46:22 <cwebber2> tantek: sure, happy to share that info
17:46:33 <cwebber2> oh my call dropped
17:46:36 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... see if we can get others to participate who have not yet
17:46:41 <cwebber2> tantek: CC has looked into making a revision that would be more software friendly
17:46:53 <cwebber2> but I think it hasn't happened yet
17:47:02 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... if people know folks who are idiologically on board with this, but not currently participating if they would like to come join us for a few hours
17:47:17 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: would we set aside a section of our schedule for that outreach
17:47:26 <cwebber2> tantek: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000092.html the thread
17:47:44 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... we do intend to go in to a lot of detail and it may be difficult to get new people involved if we are in the detail
17:47:52 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... so setting aside a specific time
17:48:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I would recommend that either early on, or late in the event
17:48:22 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... either as inspiration or being able to present some results
17:48:35 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... once we have a date we could start doing that outreach
17:48:38 <eprodrom> q?
17:48:42 <eprodrom> ack AnnB
17:49:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> AnnB: I wonder if we could re-visit the time of this call
17:49:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I know some people who would like to be involved but this time does not work for them
17:49:43 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I know its really difficult to change the time, but just wanted to throw that out
17:50:07 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: I think that we do have these calls every week, perhaps we could do an alternate time once a month or every other week
17:50:09 <sandro> -1 to any complex timing
17:50:15 <sandro> +0 to doing another survey
17:50:15 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... I would be open to it
17:50:19 <tantek> agreed with sandro
17:50:51 <hhalpin> will check in with Venezia from Telecom Italia
17:51:14 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: in my experience anything more the alternate weeks, and people forget what week they are on and people get more scheduling conflicts
17:51:22 <ben_thatmustbeme> ...i'm fine with us doing another survey
17:51:34 <hhalpin> I think it depends on if he's merely interested are actually planning on implementing but he could not due Tuesdays due to regularly scheduled conflict
17:52:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... why don't we wait until after the F2F poll perhaps ask those people to add to the poll for F2f
17:52:37 <ben_thatmustbeme> Arnaud: its better to ask for months out as of course everyone already has a schedule for next week
17:52:54 <eprodrom> q?
17:52:55 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: I like the idea of waiting until after F2F for changing our times
17:53:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... any other topics?
17:53:14 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... then lets all conclued, thank you
17:53:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> s/conclued/conclude/
17:53:32 <tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++ for scribing!
17:53:37 <Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 112 karma
17:54:07 <ben_thatmustbeme> trackbot, end meeting
17:54:07 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:54:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been sandro, wseltzer, aaronpk, Arnaud, AnnB, cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme, eprodrom, tsyesika, tantek
17:54:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:54:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/22-social-minutes.html trackbot
17:54:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:54:16 <RRSAgent> I see no action items