17:56:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
17:56:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/26-social-irc
17:56:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:56:44 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
17:56:46 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:56:46 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:56:47 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:56:47 <trackbot> Date: 26 January 2016
17:57:22 <Karli> Karli has joined #social
17:59:13 <jasnell_> jasnell_ has joined #social
17:59:32 <Arnaud> present+
18:00:11 <akuckartz> present+
18:00:18 <akuckartz> No audio conection yet.
18:00:32 <wilkie> present+
18:00:35 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+
18:00:44 <bengo> bengo has joined #social
18:01:03 <cwebber2> connecting
18:01:07 <cwebber2> I'm going to be text only for talking
18:01:11 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #social
18:01:18 <cwebber2> but will call in
18:02:15 <ben_thatmustbeme> ack, not on my usual computer and can't remember my wiki login
18:02:51 <Arnaud> well, nobody seems to be rushing so you may be in time anyway
18:03:05 <cwebber2> present+ cwebber2
18:03:24 <tantek> present+
18:03:26 <bengo> present+ bengo
18:04:31 <jasnell_> jasnell_ has joined #social
18:05:39 <azaroth> present+ Rob_Sanderson
18:05:57 <ben_thatmustbeme> i can scribe
18:06:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> okay
18:06:10 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
18:06:23 <azaroth> Arnaud: Let's get started, we don't have a very full agenda, but some important topics
18:06:32 <azaroth> Topic: Minutes Approval
18:06:41 <azaroth> Arnaud: We have two sets of minutes to approve
18:06:50 <azaroth> ... The 12th and 19th of January
18:06:55 <wilkie> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-01-12-minutes
18:06:55 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approval of Minutes of 2016-01-12 and 2016-01-19
18:07:00 <wilkie> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-01-19-minutes
18:07:11 <azaroth> ... Any objections?
18:07:16 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
18:07:19 <wilkie> +1
18:07:29 <cwebber2> +1 seems fine
18:07:30 <azaroth> RESOLUTION: Approval of Minutes of 2016-01-12 and 2016-01-19
18:07:33 <Karli> +1
18:07:37 <azaroth> +1
18:07:48 <azaroth> Arnaud:  Main topic is AS 2.0 status
18:07:57 <cwebber2> jasnell_, you there?
18:08:09 <azaroth> ... But James isn't on the call. He warned me yesterday he might not be able to join
18:08:20 <wseltzer> present+ wseltzer
18:08:38 <tsyesika> present+ tsyesika
18:08:44 <azaroth> [people are sorry they're not James]
18:09:03 <azaroth> ... He said he was looking to finish the spec by the end of the week. No new issues have been raised.
18:09:17 <azaroth> ... So status is pending editorial polish, and we have exit criteria for CR
18:09:24 <azaroth> ... last piece that's missing is a test suite
18:09:32 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #social
18:09:35 <azaroth> ... Chairs and team discussed and realized that the spec had a couple of problems
18:09:43 <rhiaro> present+ rhiaro
18:09:54 <azaroth> ... not tech issues, but missing a conformance section and the exit criteria refer to features that aren't defined
18:09:58 <azaroth> ... need to address those
18:10:07 <Arnaud> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues
18:10:10 <azaroth> ... If you follow the link from the agenda to the issues, Sandro has raised them
18:10:16 <sandro> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/280 CR: What are the separate "features" of AS2?
18:10:22 <azaroth> ... We should discuss those now if we can make progress
18:10:25 <azaroth> ... Sandro?
18:10:32 <azaroth> Sandro:  Thank you ;|
18:10:40 <sandro> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/281 CR: needs Conformance Clause
18:10:58 <azaroth> ... Conformance is 281.  After the deadline I know, but an issue.
18:11:12 <azaroth> ... There's a QA framework from about 10 years.  First requirement is a conformance clause
18:11:27 <azaroth> ... Most specs do indeed have them. But vocabs have a much harder time with them.
18:11:43 <azaroth> ... software can conform to specs, but more fuzzy for vocabs as consumer and producer are separate
18:11:59 <azaroth> ... A couple of things that handle this different are linked, and seem fairly reasonable
18:12:06 <azaroth> ... Should read through them
18:12:20 <azaroth> ... Most interesting one is the first, vocab-org
18:12:25 <azaroth> ...
18:12:37 <azaroth> ... [Reads the spec]
18:13:06 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/#conformance
18:13:21 <cwebber2> I think we resolved an issue as a MUST about that anyway right?
18:13:22 <rhiaro> I think it already says something like that in the AS2 spec, right? (If it *can* use AS2, it *must* use AS2)
18:13:24 <aaronpk> present+ aaronpk
18:13:29 <cwebber2> I was the only one who -0'ed on it ;)
18:13:32 <azaroth> ... If you're doing something like AS2, and you want to claim conformance, then use AS2
18:13:40 <rhiaro> yeah we had a MUST resolution on this recently
18:13:52 <azaroth> tantek?: I don't think it's obvious
18:14:02 <azaroth> ... We debated that specific problem
18:14:03 <cwebber2> q+
18:14:15 <azaroth> Sandro: It sounds familiar, and we need to be careful how to word it
18:14:30 <azaroth> tantek:  If I have my random extension, can I still claim conformance? And we said no
18:14:36 <azaroth> ... Have to have the AS vocab in there
18:14:44 <azaroth> Arnaud: That's in line with the example I think
18:14:45 <Arnaud> ack cwebber
18:14:49 <cwebber2> I'm going to speak just via text
18:14:50 <cwebber2> yes
18:14:54 <cwebber2> I'm in an office and failed to get a room
18:14:55 <cwebber2> so
18:15:08 <cwebber2> we already resolved something like this recently
18:15:22 <cwebber2> saying we'd mandate it as a MUST to use AS2 vocab when possible
18:15:29 <cwebber2> so I think it's a non-issue, we're already on that front
18:15:32 <cwebber2> that's all!
18:15:33 <cwebber2> q-
18:15:56 <cwebber2> yes that makes sense
18:16:04 <azaroth> Arnaud: Agree with what he's saying, think we need the section, but that it's already been discussed
18:16:15 <eprodrom> present+ eprodrom
18:16:21 <azaroth> tantek: Right, doesn't obviate the need, but something we can use to start building a conformance section
18:16:26 <azaroth> sandro: May just be editorial
18:16:41 <azaroth> Arnaud: Something we should give a chance to the editors to put something together
18:16:51 <azaroth> ... Going to turn to you Evan?
18:17:07 <azaroth> eprodrom: That's something we could do. There are bits of conformance spread throughout the docs
18:17:17 <dmitriz> present+ dmitriz
18:17:20 <azaroth> ... Can consolidate them, and like the role based mechanism that HTML5 has
18:17:29 <azaroth> ... e.g. if you play this role, this is what conformance means to you
18:17:35 <azaroth> ... could be a good way to bring it forward
18:17:44 <azaroth> ... not sure it can be exhaustive, but at least cover the 80%
18:17:49 <azaroth> [agreement]
18:18:04 <azaroth> Arnaud: Can we get you to do that, and signal the group to review, and then iterate?
18:18:10 <azaroth> eprodrom: It's on github?
18:18:18 <azaroth> Arnaud: Yes. Sandro raised the issues
18:18:34 <azaroth> ... Anything else to add? Otherwise I think we have a good plan
18:18:43 <azaroth> Topic: Granularity of Features
18:18:44 <sandro> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/280 CR: What are the separate "features" of AS2?
18:19:03 <azaroth> Arnaud: The spec does not really talk about features, but the exit criteria does.
18:19:10 <azaroth> sandro: I don't think this has to be a big deal
18:19:30 <azaroth> ... I linked from the issue to a table I look at all the time for ECMA6 features by platform
18:19:42 <azaroth> ... when using it, what am I going to be compatible with
18:19:55 <azaroth> ... The table would list the vocab terms, at a guess
18:20:10 <azaroth> Arnaud: Turn to the group, any ideas?
18:20:24 <azaroth> ... Expect the test suite to reflect those features by grouping tests per feature
18:20:47 <azaroth> ... then the implementation report would be collected and consolidated
18:20:53 <azaroth> ... the report would leverage those features
18:21:09 <azaroth> ... Inline with what has been done for the browsers, who implements which features
18:21:15 <azaroth> ... if we have enough, we declare victory :)
18:21:23 <azaroth> ... Has an impact on the spec as they need to be defined
18:21:32 <azaroth> ... And on the test suite and implementation report
18:21:42 <azaroth> q+
18:21:55 <Arnaud> ack azaroth
18:22:42 <azaroth> azaroth: Can they be by class (Event, Activity, Collection etc) or do they have to be smaller?
18:22:58 <azaroth> sandro: might need to be smaller, if people want to do part of the section
18:23:16 <azaroth> eprodrom: Refering to a particular list of features already done?
18:23:31 <azaroth> sandro: No, could read the ToC as a list of features
18:24:18 <azaroth> azaroth: Right, are there features that cross between sections, or can we divide up below the ToC
18:24:20 <tantek> q+
18:24:25 <azaroth> sandro: Not sure what in core is separable
18:24:35 <azaroth> ... hard to do anything without the core classes
18:24:53 <Arnaud> ack tantek
18:24:59 <azaroth> tantek: Curious for those who have implemented, interested to hear what you consider features?
18:25:24 <azaroth> ... not sure how useful the borders on the map discussion is beyond an arbitrary delineation
18:25:38 <azaroth> ... if no implementers, then just let Evan draw some lines
18:25:47 <azaroth> Arnaud: I'm fine with this. Obvious choice is to ask the editors
18:25:48 <cwebber2> I feel like it's kind of hard for me to give feedback on this call, just let the editors do it
18:25:53 <cwebber2> and I'll have an easier time commenting afterwards
18:25:59 <sandro> FWIW, I don't think the TOC is a good fit in this case.      Most of the features are under https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#properties
18:26:03 <azaroth> tantek: The tech requirements are in the spec
18:26:19 <azaroth> ... the feature should be just drawing lines, and if that's not the case then that would be good to know
18:26:22 <azaroth> ... so just editorial
18:26:37 <azaroth> Arnaud: If it impacts compliance/conformance, I don't think it's just editorial
18:27:06 <azaroth> ... agree that the material is available for the grouping. Mostly editorial work, but if we define features then people may have an opinion about what belongs where and how many there are
18:27:16 <azaroth> ... people will want to claim conformance to those features
18:27:33 <azaroth> tantek: Agree, an excellent point.  I think Evan has the best first cut at it
18:27:44 <azaroth> Arnaud: Yes. Can we leave it to you Evan to make a proposal
18:27:59 <azaroth> eprodrom: Yes, that makes a lot of sense. as a first cut I'll take the core and look at vocab
18:28:09 <azaroth> ... my guess is vocab will be more lax as to conformance
18:28:11 <wilkie> that makes sense to me
18:28:18 <azaroth> ... different kinds of application use different parts of the vocab
18:28:39 <azaroth> ... we talked a bit about it previously meaning if you're using this vocab if you're doing this kind of thing
18:28:43 <azaroth> Arnaud: Anything else?
18:29:03 <azaroth> ... Once we've addressed the two issues we'll be back to where we thought we were before ... tackling the test suite
18:29:06 <azaroth> Topic: Test Suite
18:29:10 <akuckartz> eprodrom++
18:29:13 <Loqi> eprodrom has 30 karma
18:29:33 <wilkie> the idea of there being "core" vs "other things" strongly implies "core" is the minimum conformance. seems fine to do.
18:29:34 <azaroth> Arnaud: We'll need to wait for the feature set to be defined.  Have bits contributed by different people, but no one has taken ownership to drive the effort and we need that
18:29:37 <eprodrom_> eprodrom_ has joined #social
18:29:41 <cwebber2> we haven't agreed on the direction
18:29:43 <azaroth> ... if someone has already volunteered I apologize and let me know
18:29:49 <cwebber2> for tests
18:29:52 <cwebber2> it keeps wavering
18:30:02 <Loqi> Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-01-26]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97335&oldid=97332
18:30:07 <azaroth> ... Often the editors that volunteer for the work, but not always realistic, so is there anyone willing to take the lead?
18:30:15 <azaroth> ... doesn't mean doing all the work, just coordinating
18:30:30 <azaroth> ... James would volunteer as he wants to see the work done, but he has a lot of responsibilities
18:30:36 <azaroth> ... Would like to look for someone else
18:31:18 <azaroth> eprodrom: I think that makes sense.  We've got some efforts that have started, i wonder if we can get to a validator for the output from producers, and a test suite of documents that consumers should be able to consume, if that's good enough
18:31:40 <azaroth> Arnaud: I think that someone needs to take a first crack at the test suite description, then we can discuss if it's adequate or if there's more to be done
18:31:45 <cwebber2> q+
18:32:00 <cwebber2> q-
18:32:01 <azaroth> ... once we agree on the framework, we can have a set of docs, and people can contribute different parts
18:32:17 <azaroth> eprodrom: I can take on setting out what I just described, and put it up as a proposal
18:32:40 <azaroth> ... could start GH projects for them. Have a validator starting point from IBM, and taking the examples out of the spec would be a good step for the other
18:32:58 <azaroth> ... Put those into a GH repository as a place to start collaborating
18:33:06 <azaroth> Arnaud: I think that sounds great.  Any other comments or ideas?
18:33:15 <azaroth> ... Hearing none, that sounds like the plan
18:33:28 <cwebber2> thanks eprodrom!
18:33:28 <azaroth> ... Thank you Evan. Good thing you joined today ;)
18:33:34 <azaroth> ... I think we can move on
18:33:50 <azaroth> ... Hoping that James will finish up and we'll hear from him soon
18:33:59 <aaronpk> q+
18:34:01 <azaroth> TOPIC:  ActivityPub and MicroPub status
18:34:11 <azaroth> sandro: Haven't look in the last 2 hours, but expect they'll go out Thursday
18:34:20 <Arnaud> ack aaronpk
18:34:21 <azaroth> ... pretty much mechanical from here on, unless something goes badly wrong
18:34:25 <wilkie> if that goes up soon, I'll take a look at the existing validator this weekend
18:34:35 <azaroth> aaronpk: I have draft ready to go, so just waiting on the pub process
18:34:41 <aaronpk> http://micropub.net/draft/
18:34:45 <azaroth> sandro: And similarly activity pub.
18:34:48 <tantek> great!
18:34:56 <azaroth> Arnaud: Sounds good
18:35:35 <azaroth> ... That takes care of the main discussions for the call, I believe.  Two things left to discuss... actions... had a look a few weeks ago and ask people to close the ones that are done or irrelevant
18:35:52 <azaroth> ... haven't seen much activity on that front. Can anyone give us an update on the open actions?
18:36:00 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/open
18:36:02 <azaroth> ... seems weird to have a bunch that have been open for a long time
18:36:15 <azaroth> ... if I were an AC rep and looking at the WG, I'd wonder what was going on
18:36:26 <azaroth> ... So trying to nudge people to take action on the actions
18:36:30 <ben_thatmustbeme> we have 1 action still open by someone not in the WG
18:36:48 <azaroth> tantek: If there's open actions not in the WG, I think chairs should take ownership of them?
18:36:57 <azaroth> Arnaud: How many do we have of those... a couple on Harry
18:37:13 <akuckartz> I will have a look at open actions for the next meeting.
18:37:15 <azaroth> tantek: Harry, Henry, haven't heard from Elf in months ... chairs should have a look.
18:37:21 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
18:37:25 <azaroth> tantek: We should clean the room too :)
18:37:41 <azaroth> Arnaud: Other than that ... Sandro ... do you want to talk about webex vs other?
18:37:45 <azaroth> Topic: Webex
18:38:25 <azaroth> sandro: Webex has been working okay recently for the group, but hearing reports of problems for others. I was wondering about other alternatives, and heard about UberConference
18:38:32 <cwebber2> does it support SIP?
18:38:38 <azaroth> ... no relation to the car ride company.  Would you be willing to try it for a few weeks
18:38:44 <cwebber2> woo
18:38:47 <tsyesika> yes!
18:38:55 <azaroth> ... seems to support SIP, dial in, dial out. Not video, which we dont' use anyway
18:38:56 <sandro> https://www.uberconference.com/sandro1
18:39:00 <sandro> https://www.uberconference.com
18:39:03 <cwebber2> lol
18:39:06 <azaroth> ... maybe poke around there
18:39:10 <tsyesika> Webex doesn't work for me, if this supprots SIP, I'm all for it
18:39:18 <azaroth> s@https://www.uberconference.com/sandro1@@
18:39:33 <azaroth> ... if it doesn't work we can fall back to webex
18:39:34 <tsyesika> webex does not work well for me
18:39:47 <azaroth> tantek: Perhaps the chairs should dogfood it first? If it works for us, we can try it with the WG
18:39:57 <eprodrom_> +1
18:39:58 <azaroth> sandro: Okay, not next week, but maybe WG in a couple weeks
18:40:02 <Loqi> Sandro made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/AS2 CR]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97337&oldid=87518
18:40:07 <akuckartz> I dislike running proprietary stuff on my computer...
18:40:08 <azaroth> ... especially looking for red flags
18:40:25 <azaroth> Arnaud: People should investigate please.
18:40:34 <azaroth> ... anyone with experience of it
18:40:37 <azaroth> tantek: Not heard of it
18:40:38 <cwebber2> I don't see anything on the site...
18:40:50 <tsyesika> I can't find anything about SIP on their site though
18:40:56 <azaroth> eprodrom: Used it extensively, simple to use, only used with 4-5 callers
18:40:59 <azaroth> ... nice web UI
18:41:11 <azaroth> Arnaud: sounds promising
18:41:25 <azaroth> ... sandro, I've just seen a free option and the $10 business line?
18:41:38 <azaroth> sandro: $10 per organizer. so per staff contact, but maybe per chair
18:42:02 <azaroth> Arnaud: They really want you to sign up for the whole year
18:42:12 <azaroth> ... we'll try it with the chairs, and others can take a look
18:42:17 <azaroth> ... let us know any issues
18:42:20 <cwebber2> it does not look like it supports SIP, but it looks like it supports webrtc
18:42:25 <cwebber2> tsyesika, ^^^
18:42:35 <cwebber2> based on some quick searches
18:42:36 <tsyesika> cwebber2: okay, that's good, i can work with webrtc
18:42:40 <azaroth> ... that brings us to the end of the agenda. Any other business?
18:42:45 <azaroth> sandro: Any new people on the call?
18:42:56 <akuckartz> webrtc++ :-)
18:42:57 <tantek> Zakim, who is here?
18:42:57 <Zakim> Present: Arnaud, akuckartz, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber2, tantek, bengo, Rob_Sanderson, wseltzer, tsyesika, rhiaro, aaronpk, eprodrom, dmitriz
18:42:58 <Loqi> webrtc has 1 karma
18:42:58 <azaroth> ... is Ira here this week?
18:42:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see jasnell, eprodrom, dmitriz, azaroth, bengo, Karli, Zakim, RRSAgent, akuckartz, tantek, bblfish, tessierashpool_, dwhly, tommorris_, ElijahLynn, bret, bitbear, Arnaud,
18:42:59 <Zakim> ... melvster, shepazu, KevinMarks, trackbot, wilkie, jet, tsyesika, ben_thatmustbeme, oshepherd, cwebber2, bigbluehat, Loqi, nickstenn, aaronpk, rhiaro, rrika, raucao, sandro,
18:42:59 <Zakim> ... wseltzer
18:43:14 <aaronpk> can we kill that Zakim feature? it doesn't actually work
18:43:32 <azaroth> Arnaud: Will do that next week
18:43:38 <azaroth> ... Will call it a day!
18:43:40 <tantek> aaronpk - just the first part "Present:" is accurate per people who said present+
18:43:47 <aaronpk> ahh
18:43:55 <aaronpk> the IRC tracking is totally busted tho
18:43:59 <azaroth> ... Thanks to Rob for scribing, thanks to all for joining, see you all next week
18:44:00 <wilkie> thanks
18:44:03 <azaroth> [Close of call]
18:44:03 <wilkie> azaroth++
18:44:06 <Loqi> azaroth has 11 karma
18:44:13 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
18:44:13 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
18:44:13 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, akuckartz, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber2, tantek, bengo, Rob_Sanderson, wseltzer, tsyesika, rhiaro, aaronpk, eprodrom, dmitriz
18:44:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:44:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/26-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:44:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
18:44:22 <RRSAgent> I see no action items