17:57:41 RRSAgent has joined #social 17:57:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/05-social-irc 17:57:43 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:57:45 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:57:45 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 17:57:46 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:57:46 Date: 05 January 2016 17:58:03 Arnaud, did you use the host code, or not need to? 18:00:03 Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-01-05]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87439&oldid=87422 18:01:13 present+ rhiaro 18:01:19 present+ 18:01:23 present+ 18:01:35 I'll scribe! 18:01:39 been a while 18:01:43 present+ 18:01:52 scribenick: rhiaro 18:01:59 chair: Arnaud 18:02:09 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-01-05 18:02:09 present+ 18:02:13 present+ Rob_Sanderson 18:02:42 present+ 18:02:49 No audio yet 18:03:54 present+ 18:03:58 running late, be right there 18:04:33 Arnaud: welcome back, happy new year! 18:04:57 TOPIC: approval of minutes from 2015-12-15 18:05:10 PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from 2015-12-15 18:05:18 Arnaud: any objections? anyone looked at them? 18:05:36 http://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-15-minutes 18:05:41 agenda is empty?! 18:05:42 sandro: They contain approval to go to fpwd for two drafts 18:05:42 present+ 18:05:43 +1 18:05:54 Arnaud: hearing no objections, approved 18:06:04 RESOLVED: Approve minutes from 2015-12-15 18:06:17 ... Reminder, face to face proposed march 16th 18:06:25 ... Page set up, please specify your expected attendance 18:06:33 ... As usual, if you're not sure please say so 18:06:35 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-03-16 18:06:37 ... Better than saying nothing 18:07:43 ... As you remember I sent regrets for the last few meetings, but noticed that agenda ended at the last call with the post-type discovery draft going to fpwd, and that was postponed to this week 18:07:52 TOPIC: Post type discover draft 18:07:59 tantek: We've had this up for a while, a few issues and some resolved 18:08:06 ... a few implementaitons of parts of it 18:08:11 ... I think it's in public shape for fpwd 18:08:16 ... So I request the group consider that 18:08:26 https://github.com/w3c-social/post-type-discovery/issues 18:08:31 ... If there are specific issues that must be resolved before we take it to fpwd pleases say what the issue number is 18:08:44 ... Other than that, general feedback, is it ready or not. I think it's ready. 18:08:51 Arnaud: Comments? 18:09:22 ... Need more time? 18:09:34 I think it is fine 18:09:35 ... If you need more time you could object and ask for time 18:09:38 ... Been on the agenda for a while 18:09:41 PROPOSED: Publish Post Type Discovery as a FPWD 18:09:43 ... Don't see any reason to delay further 18:09:58 I haven't implemented it, but have read it and see no reason to delay FPWD 18:09:59 +1 18:09:59 +1 18:10:00 ... Please vote 18:10:01 +1 18:10:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-01-05]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87440&oldid=87439 18:10:02 +1 18:10:03 Rsanders made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-03-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87441&oldid=87420 18:10:32 ... For FPWD we don't need implementation, to clarify 18:10:51 there are 10 ppl on the call 18:10:52 +0 18:10:54 +0 18:10:58 +0 18:11:30 ... I think we can call it resolved. Last call? 18:11:37 RESOLVED: Publish Post Type Discovery as a FPWD 18:11:48 ... Sandro, you'll have to send the transition request 18:12:02 sandro: is it all under respec? or need to be reformatted? 18:12:15 tantek: I probably have some respec reformatting and all the pubrules checking to do 18:12:36 sandro: could you do that in the next day or so? then we could do all three documents on thursday 18:12:38 I added a countdown for 1/7 12:00am (#5785) 18:12:40 ... Just less work to do three at once 18:12:53 tantek: I'll see what I can do, but don't hold up the others 18:13:04 Arnaud: key part is, tantek you have the ball, once you're done let sandro know 18:13:13 ... Sandro you can still request the transition in th emeantime 18:13:15 dromasca has joined #social 18:13:21 TOPIC: AS2 18:13:37 ... Ready to go to CR? Still a few issues left, some editorial 18:13:52 ... 276 in particular postponed because someone was missing 18:14:00 RRSAgent, pointer? 18:14:00 See http://www.w3.org/2016/01/05-social-irc#T18-14-00 18:14:00 ... James? 18:14:17 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues 18:14:38 jasnell: want to ensure that vocabulary document has examples of all features 18:14:43 ... Examples there don't illustrate everything 18:14:48 ... I can add those, but PRs would be helpful 18:15:03 ... tantek opened one about it needing a section on privacy implications, current working draft should have that 18:15:15 ... would like everyoen to take a look and see ifthat's adequate 18:15:24 ... Other editorial is 278, updating acknowledgements section, which I will do 18:15:32 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/261 18:15:35 ... Two substantive issues, 261 and 276 18:15:37 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/276 18:15:47 hi 18:15:51 ... 261 talks about lifecycle and naming conventions for extensions, came up at last f2f 18:15:59 ... So far no proposal put forward 18:16:26 ... 276 might be easier after 261 18:16:51 Arnaud: cwebber wants to talk about 261? 18:17:04 jasnell: 261 was a conversation between sandro and tantek at the f2f 18:17:07 ... do you want to discuss? 18:17:08 huh, do I? 18:17:12 tantek: I captured because sandro felt strongly about it 18:17:20 ... I'll leave to sandro 18:17:27 I may be mixing issues and people :) 18:17:39 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/261 18:17:42 oh... Arnaud I think it's probably important but I don't have much to say at the moment 18:17:45 "Need lifecycle and naming convention guidance for extensions to help possible future convergence and standardization " 18:17:46 jasnell: goes back to whether we need to capture naming convention or registry for extensions 18:17:51 ... for future standardisation 18:17:57 ... and whether that needs to be documented in the core draft 18:18:15 sandro: I don't think so. I mean.. I have been thinking about this a lot and I don't think there's anything we can do right now that will really help 18:18:19 jasnell: so close without action? 18:18:22 sandro: yep 18:18:25 I'm ok with that 18:18:31 PROPOSED: Close issue 261 without further action 18:18:38 +1 18:18:39 +1 18:18:43 +1 18:18:44 Arnaud: please vote 18:18:44 +1 18:18:46 +0 18:18:46 +1 18:18:46 +1 18:18:48 +1 18:19:04 +1 18:19:04 +0 18:19:14 RESOLVED: Close issue 261 without further action 18:19:31 jasnell: next is 276, require valid as2 implementations to use vocabulary where applicable 18:19:45 ... So when we're using an extension, say schema.org as a type, eg. Person 18:19:52 ... THe implementor should also use the corresponding core vocabulary type 18:20:03 ... So the type field would list schema:Person and as:Person 18:20:05 "type": ["schema:Person", "Person"] 18:20:22 that must seems reasonable 18:20:25 ... That is so that anyone who doesn't understand the extesion can still make use of that by falling back to core vocab term 18:20:30 ... Recommendation is for interop 18:20:37 ... Spec says should, issue says make it a MUST 18:20:40 as in, prevent extension makers/users from hijacking core spec semantics 18:20:46 and claim compliance 18:20:52 ... Personally I think should is fine 18:21:00 ... I know in the comment thread others said SHOULD is okay 18:21:05 ... but we need to get clarification 18:21:11 ... I'd like to propose keeping should 18:21:15 ... ie close without further action 18:21:16 I'm leaning more towards MUST 18:21:23 What are the objections to MUST? 18:21:33 I think it makes the spec stronger FWIW 18:21:36 q? 18:21:37 if you have a really good reason not to use AS2, why are you using AS2 at all? 18:21:45 Arnaud: use cases to argue one or the other? 18:21:45 MUST tends to be better for interop 18:21:52 jasnell: use case is interop 18:21:55 tantek, can you update https://github.com/w3c-social/post-type-discovery to explain which of the two drafts it links to is the real one? 18:21:58 must means extensions have to have two types, which i find annoying personally 18:22:15 I can't think of any good reason to allow foo:person and allow them to NOT say 'Person" 18:22:20 ... if someone lists only schema.org, someone who doesn't understand schema.org might not know there is a core type to correlate 18:22:29 ... tantek, want to speak? 18:22:40 q+ to be in favor of MUST 18:22:45 tantek: I think that when in doubt standards tend to work better when conservative, MUST is more consvertaive. Tightens up interop. 18:22:54 ... If people feel ambivalent about it, or no strong opinion, we should go with MUST 18:22:56 I'm -0 on MUST 18:22:59 ... Unless there's an objection to must 18:23:08 ... More MUST = better interop 18:23:11 +1 on SHOULD 18:23:14 ... Curious about use case for SHOULD 18:23:19 I have no objection to must but think the should is ok 18:23:22 q+ 18:23:24 ... I think that's where burden of proof is 18:23:29 ack azaroth 18:23:29 azaroth, you wanted to be in favor of MUST 18:23:32 ... shouldb e MUST by default 18:23:39 azaroth: also in favour of MUST for similar reasons 18:24:19 ... Should be explicit about what is required, and promoting classes and properties that the standard requires is just part of every day life. To say that you not-must use the features when you don't want to just makes it more difficult for everyone to implement 18:24:22 ack ben_thatmustbeme 18:24:35 ben_thatmustbeme: My only concern is that extensions are forced to have multiple types 18:24:49 ... if they want their own types. Annoying as a developer. Can live with, but is a nuisance 18:24:51 lets perhaps split the question: show of hands in favor of must vs show of hands in favor of keeping it as should 18:24:54 q+ to ask about extensions 18:24:59 it's not for all extensions 18:25:01 it's only "where applicable " 18:25:01 o/ should 18:25:07 "MUST" to promote interop seems strange. do you add MUST for every new thing? hmm. 18:25:10 ben_thatmustbeme: note: "where applicable " 18:25:21 poll should vs must? 18:25:23 Arnaud: straw poll 18:25:28 wilkie: yes, MUST is how standards indicate their core requirements 18:25:35 +MUST 18:25:35 I know what MUST means 18:25:36 STRAWPOLL: a) keep it a SHOULD, b) make it a MUST 18:25:46 Right. Extensions that don't conflict with the core wouldn't have multiple types 18:25:47 b 18:26:03 a: x, b: y 18:26:06 a) +1 b) +0 18:26:08 Arnaud: +/-/0 responses to both in one line 18:26:09 a: -0, b: +1 18:26:17 a) +0 b) +1 18:26:17 a: -0, b: +1 18:26:20 a) -0 b) +0 18:26:22 a: +0.5 b: +0.5 :-) 18:26:33 a: +1 b: 0 18:26:37 a) +1 b) +0 18:26:51 no real objections either way 18:26:53 Arnaud: argh... 18:26:55 a)+1 b) -0 18:27:15 jasnell: I would wager to say that everyone could live with MUST 18:27:16 I can live with MUST 18:27:19 ... even if folks are okay with should 18:27:29 it certainly does improve interop 18:27:34 sandro: only negative on must is chris with -0 18:27:36 I can live with MUST, though I think it's strange to have it that strong 18:27:39 ... chris wanst to voice? 18:27:40 but I can live with it 18:28:11 Arnaud: I'll cast a vote to try to make thins different 18:28:12 I think that it would be strange to point to an AS2 implementation and point at a term and say "you didn't include our term, you aren't compliant" 18:28:18 thus I think SHOULD makes more sense 18:28:19 ... I'm sensitive to tantek's arguement that the more MUST we have the more interop we have 18:28:28 that's my voice 18:28:34 but, I think it doesn't make or break things 18:28:37 PROPOSED: Close 276, changing to a MUST 18:28:41 +1 18:28:46 +1 18:28:46 +1 18:28:47 +1 18:28:48 cwebber2: that's essentially exactly how I feel 18:28:59 +0 18:29:00 cwebber2 only if there's an applicable type, right? 18:29:02 +0.5 18:29:10 however I'm also happy to have a resolution 18:29:14 so if there *is* an applicable type, why wouldn't you use it? 18:29:16 +0 18:29:19 0 18:29:29 cwebber2: that's exactly what the MUST is for, so an implementer can't just make up their own duplicate versions of the terms in AS2 Core and claim compliance without using AS2 terms in actuality. 18:29:32 if there isn't an applicable as2 type, no big deal 18:29:33 thank you cwebber2 .. yeah, it's only applicable if there's an overlapping type in the core 18:29:46 0 18:29:47 note that going through trains makes it hard to vote 18:29:53 Arnaud: we don't have to rush if you want to discuss further 18:29:59 understood cwebber2 18:30:00 I'm 0 becaus I am fine with closing with MUST 18:30:06 if it means closing it 18:30:11 I don't think it's worth keeping open 18:30:24 jasnell: I can add language to clarify that this is really when there are overlapping terms 18:30:31 ... It's not saying you MUST use one every time, only when there's overlap 18:30:37 jasnell_, that is fine with me 18:30:37 Also, making it a MUST will help force implementers to reveal any specific use-cases to the contrary (i.e. for a SHOULD) 18:30:39 and helps 18:30:42 Arnaud: I think we can close it 18:30:52 +0 with that clarification 18:30:56 RESOLVED: Close 276, changing to a MUST 18:31:05 Arnaud: ready for CR then? 18:31:07 er 18:31:09 I should say 18:31:10 jasnell: Will get a new wd out this week, and go from there 18:31:14 going through tunnels makes it hard to vote :) 18:31:23 mountain tunnels aren't exactly great for tethering :) 18:31:28 Arnaud: can we agree to go to CR pendng james's edits? 18:31:36 ok will add an issue 18:31:39 +1 on CR pending edits 18:31:42 sandro: we can't go to CR without figuring out exit criteria, and we should probably ?? tests 18:31:59 Arnaud: for now we'll let james edit, get it in shape, then tackle those issues next week 18:32:04 exit criteria: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/279 18:32:05 ... Maybe now? 18:32:23 just created 18:32:23 for tracking purposes 18:32:24 ... tantek, you're pointing to an issue.. 18:32:36 ... proposal? 18:32:56 tantek: just wanted to capture what sandro said 18:33:09 q+ 18:33:10 Arnaud: usually exit criteria means there are two implementations of every feature 18:33:18 ... doesn't mean they have to be in the same implementation 18:33:29 sandro: need to clarify what it means to be an implementation 18:33:33 ... producer, consumer.. 18:33:45 ... Vague sense we had consensus at face to face, but not clear 18:33:48 q- 18:33:51 q- 18:33:52 q+ to talk about test suite 18:33:57 Arnaud: we could talk more now or put at the end of agenda for today 18:34:03 ... Mostly what's left today is status updates 18:34:10 q+ 18:34:14 ack jasnell_ 18:34:14 jasnell_, you wanted to talk about test suite 18:34:32 https://github.com/jasnell/as2corpus 18:34:35 jasnell: as far as test suite is concerned, I did create a new github repo to start collecting sample activitystreams documents 18:34:49 ... PRs to add samples to these would be helpful, I'll add as I have time (which I haven't) 18:34:54 ... will continue to add myself too 18:35:09 ... intent of this is to give us a corpus of test documents that illustrate every feature of the vocabulary 18:35:17 ... so that implementations can go test to make sure that they are compliant 18:35:53 Arnaud: so what's important is that when we publish the cr draft is we have a pointer that leads people to a page where they can understand where to start and how to test their implementation 18:35:59 sandro: and where to post test results 18:36:10 Arnaud: okay if it's not complete, but we at least need a pointer in the document 18:36:19 sandro: gonna be some press around it saying this is our call for implementations 18:36:25 ... so good to have instructions (complete) on day one 18:36:34 ... strongly suggest we have test suite done 18:36:36 Samples of non-AS2 documents will also be helpful 18:36:37 ... we can fix it later 18:36:42 q? 18:36:43 ... but should have it ready to go and copmlete before CR 18:36:54 ack tantek 18:36:55 ... Depending on whether we're trying to sneak through or get something good here 18:37:22 tantek: from my understanding we don't actually need to have a complete test suite to enter CR, even to have a test suite at all, but the more we do have the more real it looks and the more implementable it looks 18:37:30 ... so this is going to have to be a judgement call 18:37:41 ... strictly from a process perspective we can enter CR as long as we have agreed on exit criteria 18:37:46 ... that meet w3c exit criteria expectations 18:38:05 ... The biggest challenge with the test suite is not to have one that's complete but to have a test suite that lets us have some common understanidng 18:38:18 ... last time we got into a heavy discussion about the test suite there were different opinions about what that meant 18:38:38 ... if we have to figure this out, the biggest challenge is how to say this implementation does something with the vocabulary that makes it necessary to be in the spec 18:38:58 ... If all we have is tests that converts a stream between syntaxes, all it's testing is syntax parsing, not justifying anything in the vocabulary 18:39:06 ... That's the biggest problem of considering whether a feature is 'implemented\ 18:39:10 ... That's the biggest challeng 18:39:12 +1 tantek -- the tests should really show the vocabulary being used 18:39:14 q+ 18:39:22 ... Don't have a proposal, more just want to raise this issue as an area of past disagreemtn that we need to resolve on 18:39:30 ... Also an area that evan and myself have disagreed on in the past 18:39:36 ... other opinions on this, people should speak up 18:39:39 tantek++ 18:39:42 tantek has 267 karma 18:39:47 ... say what they think a featur emeans, and what testing that feature means 18:39:48 +1 to tantek, and +1 to not delaying -entering- CR before having the test suite 18:39:59 Arnaud: i recall, two aspects 18:40:04 ... testing producers, can do with a validator 18:40:16 ... testing consumers, have a suite of documents that james was talking about 18:40:19 a validator should certainly be a very minimum for our "test suite" 18:40:28 ... How you test wehther the application really understands it is still open ended I believe 18:40:33 ack sandro 18:40:37 sandro: I agree with what tantek just said 18:41:09 ... i think cwebber2 and I were talking after the f2f... understanding I came to is that we should have a validator that at least gives a simple human readable description of what the machine readable syntax says 18:41:19 ... Producers check their output against this validator 18:41:29 ... And they send us an email saying all the terms they used and checked against the validator 18:41:37 ... and we keep a table of all the terms they said that about 18:41:54 ... and Consumers, need to use our suite of documents to tell us which terms their consumer can consume 18:42:03 ... and their good faith assertion that it consumes them properly and understands what they mean 18:42:22 ... and they might want to test that side by side with a validator. Look at a document in our validator and their thing, and say if they agree they make sense in the same way 18:42:40 ... So we have a list of terms people produce and consume and believ ethey do so correctly because it aligns with our validator 18:42:44 Arnaud: comment? 18:42:46 sandro++ 18:42:50 sandro has 26 karma 18:42:51 tantek: good start 18:42:56 sandro++ 18:42:59 sandro has 27 karma 18:43:08 ... biggest challenge is validating that a vocabulary is being used correctly 18:43:18 ... is one thing, but part of the purpose of exiting CR is saying 18:43:23 ... these feature are *doing something* 18:43:33 ... if that something is abstrac tor concrete... by concrete I mean in a UI 18:43:36 the challenge is whether the abstract vocabulary does something specifically in the UX 18:43:55 sandro: I'd like the reports from people not just to be a checklist of terms, but a paragraph saying what they're doin gwith it 18:44:09 ... Hope that would help get the ball rolling if people see what others ar edoing 18:44:27 Arnaud: sandro since you seem opinionated about what we are to do, can you make a proposal? 18:44:37 ... By next week 18:44:52 sandro: Sure.. the hard work is going to be having the test suite and validator and collecting results 18:44:57 ... I think we need volunteers to do all those things 18:45:03 ... But I'm happy to write that proposal 18:45:15 Arnaud: Quite a bit of work, not sure if we can afford to wait for it all to be done for CR 18:45:30 ... Would be in favour of adding framework set up, publish CR with pointer, and keep on working on it 18:45:39 sandro: be nice to have the beginnings of a test suite and hopefully a partial validator 18:45:44 ... but could say coming soon 18:46:16 tantek: this is where if we are specific in the exit criteria and we say that we say there are two or more implemenations of every feature where an implemenation means they are producing/consuming syntax correctly, and also producing some result that is unique to that vocabulary term as compared to other terms 18:46:25 ... some language like that to put strenght into CR exit critiera 18:46:31 ... that buys us time to create broader test framework 18:46:37 ... we don't even need to have it partially done before CR 18:46:43 ... I don't want to delay CR based on test suite 18:47:20 sandro: I'm not going to stand on the road over this, but If eel like in terms of developer engagement, but I'd rather hit them with one.. here's a time to look at AS2, and have the ducks in a row 18:47:26 ... meaning there's a validator, examples 18:47:37 ... and here's one or two implementations from inside WG 18:47:44 ... as a developer I'd have a much more positive reaction 18:47:51 ... if it all says coming soon, I could ignore 18:47:58 Arnaud: I agree we don't want to have nothing, but there's a middle ground 18:48:09 ... We have a basic framework set up, and say as we move forward we'll add 18:48:16 sandro: has to be enough that i can start to play right now 18:48:22 ... has to be a working validator for at least some stuff 18:48:28 ... and a working set of info documents 18:48:38 ... if I can't write code today and get in a feedback loop with the WG 18:49:02 tantek: I sympathise with what sandro is saying from a developer perspective. In the braoder view, AS2 has been in the discussion for years before w3c etc 18:49:04 i'd agree with sandro, as a developer i would want a validator and set of documents 18:49:08 ... Some level of built up expectation that we have inherited 18:49:15 ... This is not brand new, it's been maturing for years 18:49:25 ... Expectation that more of these tools and tests exist 18:49:29 ... Absence may give people the wrong impression 18:49:45 ... The fact that as2 has been going on for years before w3c has touched it. People have heard of it, already have an idea of what it means 18:49:59 ... There's been a lot of work, we're not just rubber stamping, we need to show developers where the work is 18:50:07 ... Devleopers can say 'okay now I get why this is real now' 18:50:17 ... We have to figure something out, I don't know how 18:50:32 Arnaud: i don't think we're far away, just a matter of finding the sweet spot so we can got to CR without waiting for too long 18:50:44 ... Suggest we leave it at this for today, sandro will put proposal together 18:50:51 ... Feel free to discuss between now and next week 18:50:58 ... Next week we can see what it will take 18:51:04 ... See who volunteers to help out etc 18:51:15 TOPIC: Status updates 18:51:27 ... Docs approved for publication last week. Sandro? 18:51:55 sandro: I think it's in my lap at this point. We can't use echidna for fpwd, so a bunch of manual steps, which can only be done on thursday 18:51:56 I added a countdown for 1/7 12:00am (#5786) 18:52:08 Arnaud: we got approval from wendy 18:52:20 sandro: I have to convert to static html and run a bunch of tests 18:52:35 Arnaud: maybe thursday, if not tuesay next week 18:52:45 Ok, I cancelled it 18:52:54 ... Reminder on giving everybody until 12th Jan to raise issues in ActivityPump and micropub 18:52:58 ... Don't miss out 18:53:02 ... Expectation to go to fpwd 18:53:17 ... Finally, admin.. looking at tracker, a couple of issues 18:53:24 ... when I looked at actions, baffled by list of open actions 18:53:36 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/open 18:53:36 ... Don't care to go through this now, but highly recommend that people look, several of you have open actions 18:53:48 ... We should be able to close some of these 18:54:03 ... Either they have become irrelevant or you can tell us what's stopping you 18:54:11 ... But looks silly to have actions due over a year ago still open 18:54:31 ... Please ahve a closer look and see where cleanup can be done? 18:54:45 ... That leads us to the end of the call 18:54:46 we have actions for people no longer in the WG 18:54:52 ... Next call next week, resuming normal weekly callls 18:54:57 ... Any other items? 18:55:11 sandro: on the open actions, some of mine are obsolete and we basically just stopped using the tracker 18:55:21 ... should just mark as done? Others are more debateable? 18:55:29 ... Shouldl people just mark them done or invovle the rest of the group? 18:55:35 Arnaud: personally I'm fine with people marking them as done 18:55:45 ... There is a history of changes 18:55:50 ... So if there's abuse, it can be dug up 18:55:56 ... Meant to be a help to the group 18:56:21 sandro: mark as closed if it's not controversial, pending review if you want to talk about it 18:56:26 Arnaud: yes, then we can discuss on calls 18:56:32 ... If there's something that really ought to be done, please do it! 18:56:56 ... Any other business? 18:56:56 q? 18:57:48 ... Let's close on this 18:57:50 bye! 18:57:51 ... Thanks! 18:57:53 rhiaro++ 18:57:55 Bye all! :) 18:57:55 thanks all 18:57:56 rhiaro has 194 karma 18:58:13 trackbot, end meeting 18:58:13 Zakim, list attendees 18:58:13 As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, 18:58:16 ... tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young, bengo, ben_thatmust, KevinMarks_, jasnell_, MUST 18:58:21 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 18:58:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/05-social-minutes.html trackbot 18:58:22 RRSAgent, bye 18:58:22 I see no action items