IRC log of social on 2016-05-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:58:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
16:58:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-social-irc
16:58:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:58:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
16:58:23 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:58:23 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
16:58:24 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:58:24 [trackbot]
Date: 03 May 2016
16:58:53 [aaronpk]
present+
16:59:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
present+
16:59:09 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
16:59:28 [Arnaud]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-05-03
16:59:38 [shevski]
present+
16:59:39 [Arnaud]
present+
16:59:40 [tantek]
present+
17:00:25 [rhiaro]
present+
17:00:27 [cwebber2]
cwebber2 has joined #social
17:00:29 [sandro]
present+
17:00:30 [rhiaro]
I will scribe today!
17:00:34 [rhiaro]
It's been a while
17:00:37 [Arnaud]
thanks amy!
17:00:41 [tantek]
yay! welcome back rhiaro :)
17:00:54 [shevski]
present+
17:01:57 [cwebber2]
present!
17:01:59 [cwebber2]
oops
17:02:01 [cwebber2]
present+
17:02:09 [aaronpk]
hehe, present! is more exciting
17:02:23 [aaronpk]
maybe we can add that syntax to the bots
17:02:25 [tantek]
Zakim, who is here?
17:02:25 [Zakim]
Present: aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, shevski, Arnaud, tantek, rhiaro, sandro, cwebber
17:02:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see cwebber2, Zakim, RRSAgent, annbass, shevski, vinny, tantek, jasnell, shepazu, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, strugee, KevinMarks, Arnaud, oshepherd, wilkie, wseltzer,
17:02:27 [Zakim]
... sandro, trackbot, rrika, aaronpk, raucao, rhiaro, jet, tsyesika, bret, dwhly, ElijahLynn, tessierashpool_, Loqi, bitbear
17:02:35 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:03:51 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
17:04:02 [eprodrom]
I'm on the call!
17:04:05 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Approval of minutes
17:04:07 [Arnaud]
Approval of Minutes of 2016-04-26 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-04-26-minutes
17:04:09 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: any objections?
17:04:17 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approval of Minutes of 2016-04-26 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-04-26-minutes
17:04:20 [cwebber2]
+1
17:04:26 [aaronpk]
+1
17:04:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
can probably remove the perl script output at the end
17:04:31 [eprodrom]
+1
17:04:33 [cwebber2]
there's the scribe.perls tuff but
17:04:33 [cwebber2]
yes
17:04:34 [rhiaro]
... Hearing none, approved
17:04:38 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approval of Minutes of 2016-04-26 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-04-26-minutes
17:04:44 [eprodrom]
present+
17:04:58 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: F2F dates
17:05:15 [eprodrom]
Here!
17:05:35 [eprodrom]
Sorry, had a hard time unmuting
17:06:02 [tsyesika]
Present+
17:06:08 [rhiaro]
Sandro: brewster khale from archive.org posted about decentralising the web a few months ago. i learned yesterday that they are holding a summit in SF which overlaps with the f2f
17:06:13 [rhiaro]
... I'd really like to go
17:06:18 [rhiaro]
... I'm wondering if we can move a day earlier
17:06:26 [rhiaro]
... I don't know if facilities are available - aaronpk?
17:06:36 [rhiaro]
... And who has already bought a ticket? People going to iwc would be there anyway
17:06:50 [rhiaro]
... Evan seems the most likely person to have already bought a ticket to arrive justi n time for the meeting. But thought I'd ask.
17:06:59 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I do not have a problem with this, so it should be fine from mys ide
17:07:02 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: Anyone else?
17:07:12 [KevinMarks]
present+
17:07:22 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I would have to check with the host since I only asked about the two days we requested, if the space is available for the other day
17:07:31 [rhiaro]
... If there are no other objections I'm happy to ask, but I don't want to ask if it's blocked by some other reason
17:07:41 [rhiaro]
Sandro: cwebber2 does it work for you?
17:07:44 [cwebber2]
I talkeda bout it with rhiaro
17:07:45 [cwebber2]
it works
17:07:46 [shevski]
sandro what's the website url?
17:07:46 [rhiaro]
... Not sure who else is coming in from out of time
17:07:49 [rhiaro]
s/time/town
17:07:49 [tantek]
meeting URL?
17:07:53 [aaronpk]
http://www.decentralizedweb.net/
17:07:54 [cwebber2]
sandro, ^^^
17:08:04 [shevski]
thanks
17:08:04 [rhiaro]
http://brewster.kahle.org/2015/08/11/locking-the-web-open-a-call-for-a-distributed-web-2/
17:08:16 [tantek]
I mean our meeting URL?
17:08:26 [rhiaro]
sandro: looking at the rsvp list, I think that's okay for everyone else? Hopefully nobody is being quite who has a problem with this
17:08:33 [eprodrom]
q+
17:08:38 [aaronpk]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-07
17:08:52 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: since it's getting farily close, we should find out within a day or two
17:08:53 [eprodrom]
q-
17:08:59 [rhiaro]
sandro: aaronpk can go ahead and check with the hosts
17:09:11 [rhiaro]
... I'm trying to reach the organisers of the summit to see if they are flexible on the dates
17:09:15 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Pending confirmation of availability from host by Aaron, change F2F dates from 2016-06-07..08 to 2016-06-06..07
17:09:16 [rhiaro]
... So between those two hopefully we'll get an answer
17:09:23 [rhiaro]
+1
17:09:36 [sandro]
+1
17:09:44 [rhiaro]
tantek: Is anyone else interested in the other conference?
17:09:52 [cwebber2]
semi-interested, but not confident I can go
17:09:53 [KevinMarks]
I am interested in it
17:09:54 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> Also interested in the other conference
17:10:02 [Loqi]
Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-05-03]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=98163&oldid=98159
17:10:03 [Loqi]
Aaronpk made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=98164&oldid=98154
17:10:05 [cwebber2]
like, I'd like to go, not sure I can afford to add another hop
17:10:16 [rhiaro]
tantek: if there's a lot of interest that brings additional weight to tryign to resolve the conflict
17:10:24 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: but if nobody opposes it it doesn't really matter
17:10:28 [rhiaro]
... If the host can host us a day earlier then we're good
17:10:35 [sandro]
(in my flight, it looks like another $75 to add SFO to a Boston - Portland trip)
17:10:58 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: Vote?
17:10:58 [tantek]
0
17:11:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
0
17:11:04 [tsyesika]
0
17:11:07 [cwebber2]
+0
17:11:13 [eprodrom]
+1
17:11:14 [rhiaro]
PROPOSED: Pending confirmation of availability from host by Aaron, change F2F dates from 2016-06-07..08 to 2016-06-06..07
17:11:18 [aaronpk]
-0
17:11:20 [annbass]
present+
17:11:43 [rhiaro]
annbass: I can do any date because I'm driving from Seattle
17:11:59 [annbass]
+1
17:12:19 [KevinMarks]
0
17:12:27 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: +1 means you support the proposal
17:12:33 [rhiaro]
... Nobody is objecting to it
17:12:52 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I would rather do tues/weds but I'm not going to block it
17:13:01 [rhiaro]
tantek: I have a slight bias for keeping the current one but not enough to -0 it
17:13:15 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Pending confirmation of availability from host by Aaron, change F2F dates from 2016-06-07..08 to 2016-06-06..07
17:13:22 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I'm going to call it resolved. aaron, if you could check with the host and as soon as you know send an email to the list
17:13:26 [rhiaro]
... And based on that, we will change or not
17:13:31 [rhiaro]
... The sooner the better
17:13:41 [rhiaro]
sandro: thank you aaron and tantek and everyone for being flexible
17:13:51 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Webmention
17:14:01 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: What's the status? What do we need to do to make progress?
17:14:20 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: Two weeks ago we had 0 open issues, including IANA published their updated list of link relations
17:14:41 [rhiaro]
... Last week we voted to accept the exit criteria and publish a new draft, as well as the big thing from last week's call was developing the implementation report template and method
17:14:44 [aaronpk]
https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/#test-suite-and-reporting
17:14:55 [aaronpk]
http://webmention.net/implementation-reports/
17:14:57 [rhiaro]
... So there is now a new section in the spec describing how to submit implementation reports
17:15:01 [rhiaro]
... A template in markdown on github
17:15:21 [rhiaro]
... And I filled out a sample for one of my implementations so you can take a look at that and fork the repo, copy the file, and send a PR to submit a report
17:16:03 [rhiaro]
... The status of the test suite itself, webmention.rocks now links to the implementationr eport with instructions
17:16:19 [rhiaro]
... On my todo list is still to create the tests for receiving in webmention.rocks, but the tests themselves are described in the implementationr eport
17:16:36 [rhiaro]
... So it is possible to submit a complete report including verifying the behaviour of the receiver even though there is not a tool in place to assist with that
17:16:51 [rhiaro]
... In the mean time there is a tool to help testing receivers that walks you through the items in the report checklist
17:17:06 [rhiaro]
... That's my plan for finishing the test suite is to follow the implementation report's checklist and create tests for each of those
17:17:09 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: Any questions or comments?
17:17:29 [eprodrom]
q+
17:17:34 [rhiaro]
... I noticed that for the implementation you put a link to a section in the spec, you have a section in the spec for that and I don't think that's the way to do this because you want more of a live document for that
17:17:46 [rhiaro]
... So I think it has to be a link to a page which is outside of the spec so that you can update that freely as you get more information
17:17:52 [rhiaro]
... It could be a wiki page or some page on github
17:18:08 [rhiaro]
... It doesn't matter where, but I think it should be outside of the spec so that once the spec is in CR you can keep updating that as much as you want without having to republish
17:18:12 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: that makes sense
17:18:34 [rhiaro]
... Happy to take that out and move the content to possiblyl the github page with the implementation report template, or the wiki, we'll figure out what makes mroe sense
17:18:47 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: what you could do is put a link in the spec to the page
17:18:55 [rhiaro]
... So people can find where the list of implementations is maintained
17:19:30 [rhiaro]
tantek: github sugggestion makes the most sense since developers will show up to write an implementation report and see the existing ones, and if you're showing up to look at the implementationr eport it's easier to discover how to make one of your own
17:19:34 [rhiaro]
... But obviously up to you
17:19:42 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I think that makes sense, keep it in the same workflow as the implementation reports
17:19:47 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: anyone else?
17:20:05 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Couple of questions, mostly for the group
17:20:11 [rhiaro]
... Have we had a vote to decide to take webmention to CR?
17:20:15 [rhiaro]
... Should we schedule one?
17:20:17 [rhiaro]
... Next week?
17:20:22 [rhiaro]
... Do we think it will be ready for next week?
17:20:41 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: Not yet had a vote, based on progress from last week to this week I don't have anything else on my todo list before we can vote to take it to CR
17:20:46 [rhiaro]
... we could vote today
17:20:52 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: It's a pretty big discussion
17:20:57 [rhiaro]
... Are you sure you want to do that today or next week?
17:21:09 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: My question is what new information would we gain between today and next week?
17:21:20 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: My guess is that it would probably suck up a large chunk of the rest of our meeting today
17:21:21 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: why?
17:22:06 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: When we first started working on this and the other parts of our suite, activitypub, AS2, micropub, we started progressing towards recommendation status with the idea that we would have this evolving process happen, some of them would end up as notes, some of them would never make it to cr, some of them would become cr
17:22:15 [rhiaro]
... this has been the idea of moving forward with multiple documents. Is that incorrect?
17:22:24 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: that sounds right
17:22:39 [tantek]
q+ about urgency we discussed at last f2f
17:22:40 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: so taking this particular one to CR I think is.. especially being our first CR.. is an important discussiont o have
17:22:51 [tantek]
q+ to note urgency we discussed at last f2f
17:22:54 [rhiaro]
... What our strategy is for what we produce for the rest of our period together
17:23:01 [rhiaro]
... I see that as an important part of what we do as a group
17:23:10 [rhiaro]
... Deciding which documents we produce and whether they're CRs, notes, or not published at all
17:23:15 [rhiaro]
... Maybe I'm overestimating the importance of that
17:23:44 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: Evan can you be more specific? aaron is asking if he can use webmention to CR, are you opposed and that's why you're bringing it up?
17:23:56 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'm opposed, Id on't think publishing a bunch of unrrelated documents makes sense
17:24:04 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: so you think this doens't fit with everything else we want to publish?
17:24:40 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I simply am saying that we have a charter to produce certain kinds of documents, this is not one of the three specifications, it doesn't fit the requirements of any of the three, so I'd like us to have a strategy that says this is why we published it, this is the relationship to our charter, and this is what we're doing for the rest of our products
17:24:54 [rhiaro]
... As a group we're producing a suite of specifications and we need to be aware of that suite that we are producing
17:25:03 [rhiaro]
... We have to be aware of what we're doing, we have to have a strategy
17:25:05 [Arnaud]
q?
17:25:06 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I understand, thank you
17:25:09 [Arnaud]
ack eprodrom
17:25:12 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
17:25:12 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to note urgency we discussed at last f2f
17:25:28 [rhiaro]
tantek: I think the framing that evan noted that when we first started working on all the different parts is accurate
17:25:39 [rhiaro]
... We deliberately work some documents towards CR some towards Notes
17:25:44 [rhiaro]
... What has changed are two things
17:25:56 [rhiaro]
... We started to explicitly note when we accepted a documented as an ED whether we thought it was rec track or not
17:26:17 [rhiaro]
... This came out of a discussion in december at the f2f in SF where there was a bunch of different documents we were taling about accepting for ED, and some it was clear they should be rec-track, some there wasn't that consensus
17:26:25 [rhiaro]
... We said it's okay if we produce things that are note-track
17:26:31 [rhiaro]
... One specific example is jf2
17:26:33 [vinny]
vinny has joined #social
17:26:52 [rhiaro]
... Then the next change that we made since that discussion in terms of how we move forward was in March we talked about the urgency of how little time we have left
17:27:03 [rhiaro]
... And how do we make progress on these documents as quickly as possible so that we have a chance of getting anything to rec at all
17:27:16 [rhiaro]
... One of the decisions we made there was that we were going to be okay with moving multiple docuemtns with multiple approaches to rec
17:27:24 [rhiaro]
... and we would document guidence for developers in terms of when might you use one vs the other
17:27:41 [rhiaro]
... I feel like we have had these discusisons, would be opposed to reopening them
17:27:50 [rhiaro]
... that's the state I recall from the past f2fs
17:27:54 [jaywink]
jaywink has joined #social
17:28:44 [sandro]
q+
17:28:46 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: This is a bigger question of if webmention is on the rec-track, does it qualify to move to CR? The bigger question evan is raising is should webmention be on the rec track?
17:28:52 [Arnaud]
ack sandro
17:29:11 [rhiaro]
sandro: I guess my question .. or proposal... I understand that it's not obvious to people how webmention meets our charter requirements
17:29:11 [KevinMarks]
webmention is explictly mentioned in the charter on recommendation tarck deliverables
17:29:31 [rhiaro]
... I think it's clear to me and to the people who are interested in webmentino, but I hear evan saying we should be clear in in public somewhere about what that is
17:29:33 [KevinMarks]
"Federation should include multiple servers sharing updates within a client-server architecture, and allow decentralized social systems to be built. One possible input to this task is WebMention and another possible input is the Linked Data Platform."
17:29:38 [KevinMarks]
https://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter
17:29:41 [annbass]
q+
17:29:46 [rhiaro]
... We can do it in an official document on the w3 site, on the groups homepage, some status document
17:29:59 [rhiaro]
... Would , assuming that were well written and clear, would that satisfy what you'r elooking for evan?
17:30:03 [tantek]
Specifically: https://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html#deliverables
17:30:08 [eprodrom]
q+
17:30:09 [Arnaud]
ack annbass
17:30:52 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Sandro, what you're saying is that we sould do a simple blog post about webmention, we would say that it fits in the federation protocol slot, and would we say anything about the other parts of our charter or what else we're going to produce?
17:31:27 [tantek]
q?
17:31:28 [rhiaro]
sandro: I would like the post to say we're going to have consensus on one way to make thish all work so we're taking a multi faceted approach that each don't appraoch 100% of what people might want out of a federation protocol. Wm is one of those pieces here, we're not claiming it solves everything, but is sitll useful in its own right
17:32:01 [tantek]
I think there's a positive way of framing that too, that this is one building block of a modular approach, and that we're still figuring out the different pieces
17:32:07 [rhiaro]
annbass: I was gonna ask or suggest that rather than a blog post, for me it would be valuable if there could be I don't know what form, some sort of document ongoing summary of how the group envisions these different technologies to fit together
17:32:12 [rhiaro]
... when you would make a choice to use one vs the other
17:32:21 [rhiaro]
... some larger guide
17:32:36 [tantek]
And that based on implementation experience there is evidence that this building block does further some of our goals (but obviously not all)
17:32:39 [rhiaro]
... and do we anticipate the group to go and develop other componants? or is this the end? My fear is only oen blog post would get lost
17:32:46 [rhiaro]
sandro: could also be homepage news item
17:32:46 [KevinMarks]
isn't what ann asks for http://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/
17:32:52 [rhiaro]
q+ to remind SWP
17:33:04 [rhiaro]
annbass: It seems like some form of summary guide
17:33:08 [rhiaro]
... would be useful
17:33:13 [KevinMarks]
just lost audio
17:33:14 [rhiaro]
sandro: we do have SWP that might serve that goal
17:33:31 [rhiaro]
... Between SWP and a blog post and homepage news, could that in theory address evan's concern? Or is there some other piece that's an obstacle
17:33:34 [KevinMarks]
oh, my call hung up
17:34:00 [rhiaro]
q-
17:34:10 [KevinMarks]
audio back
17:34:32 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I think what you're saying is we would publish SWP as a Note? Explanation of how this group of specifications is supposed to do together. And then we would plan to publish wm to CR because it's ready, we take AS2 to CR soon because it's ready.
17:34:49 [rhiaro]
... Would we take our other two rec track specs, micropub and activitypub, to CR before the end of the year? Is that the goal?
17:34:59 [Arnaud]
ack eprodrom
17:35:00 [rhiaro]
sandro: my understanidng is that is what peolpe want to do at the last f2f
17:35:07 [rhiaro]
... Question of whether there's enough energy, I hope there is
17:35:17 [rhiaro]
... We should know at this face to face
17:35:29 [rhiaro]
tantek: my understanding from past f2f is that we're trying very hard to coordinate but decouple
17:35:52 [rhiaro]
... That we wanted to do as much as we could to enable our documents to proceed to CR as quickly as possible because of the time constraints involved
17:35:58 [cwebber2]
q+
17:35:58 [rhiaro]
... With AS2 we've tried to remove obstacles to try to get it to CR as quickly as possible
17:36:08 [rhiaro]
... If wm is the next one that seems to be ready it's good that we're discussing that
17:36:21 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
17:36:32 [rhiaro]
... There are criteria that we have figured out for when it's good to take things to CR, exit criteria, feature descriptions, test suite, those are good measures for when something is ready for CR
17:36:54 [rhiaro]
... But as far as the if quesiton, I feel like that's something we resovled before and that if there's new information about why we should or should not atke something to CR we should talk about it, but I haven't heard that
17:36:59 [eprodrom]
q?
17:37:12 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber
17:37:36 [rhiaro]
tantek: we've already published SWP, and amy has an iteration, so that's already agreed, there's no extra process for that
17:38:11 [rhiaro]
cwebber: just briefly, I support any document going to CR when it's actually ready, but in the event that somehow webmention ended up going to CR before AS2 after all this work and being so close to CR I would really wonder what happened that we ended up that way
17:38:21 [eprodrom]
q+
17:38:24 [cwebber2]
end of comment :)
17:38:28 [Arnaud]
ack eprodrom
17:38:33 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'm happy to answer that question
17:38:47 [rhiaro]
... We got very close to CR, we had a big change in personnell, it's taken me longer than I thought
17:38:54 [rhiaro]
... I'm not happy about that situation but that's where we are
17:38:59 [rhiaro]
... So it is an unfortunate part of things
17:39:17 [rhiaro]
... If webmention goes to CR before AS2 I will be unhappy about that but it's great that it's worked out so quickly
17:39:25 [cwebber2]
I don't think it's a race either :)
17:39:29 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I don't want us to mix all these issues, which is first is not a big deal
17:39:31 [cwebber2]
if it's ready, it should be
17:39:34 [KevinMarks]
rhiaro++
17:39:36 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 202 karma
17:39:36 [rhiaro]
... What is the end game?
17:39:46 [rhiaro]
... I'm hearing evan is against moving webmention on rec track
17:40:16 [rhiaro]
... I heard before we can figure this out later, so those specs moved to ED, which set an expectation that these things wer eon the rec track, and now it's fair to say aaron did the work that is required to qualify for CR, and now we're saying do we really want to do this
17:40:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
as to your question cwebber, it think its just a LOT harder to get a serialization right vs a really small spec for processing
17:40:28 [rhiaro]
... On one hand evan is saying no, and on the other people are saying lets go to CR and then we'll see
17:40:33 [annbass]
q+
17:40:37 [Arnaud]
ack annbass
17:40:39 [rhiaro]
... Seems like there's an issue that wasn't really resovled
17:40:41 [cwebber2]
ben_thatmustbeme, that's probably true
17:40:54 [rhiaro]
annbass: I was hearing evan speak to the point of having a global understanding of how this was all going to roll out
17:41:01 [rhiaro]
... Rather than that you were blocking webmention per say
17:41:04 [rhiaro]
... Could you clarify?
17:41:22 [annbass]
s/per say/per se/
17:41:26 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Ann thanks, yeah I am not interested in blocking webmention, I think it's a solid specification, excellent work, strong implementations
17:41:58 [rhiaro]
... I feel like we've been asked to provide in our charter certain deliverables, from my point of view if I'd been asked to provide deliverables I'd want to either provide them or have an explanation about why I'm not
17:42:25 [rhiaro]
... So I think that when we produce documents in a way that's going to be the first very visible thing we do to the rest of the world after a year and a half of work, it would be nice for us to have a story about what we're doing and how we're doing it
17:42:32 [rhiaro]
... how we got here, and what we're doing next
17:42:37 [rhiaro]
... what the relationship of the documents is to our charter
17:42:40 [cwebber2]
(btw, if we voted on going to CR, I think the "put a blogpost on why we're including webmention and go to CR", I'd vote for that... I do think it's at a good stage and we've positioned the group to make space for it)
17:42:51 [KevinMarks]
so is evan saying that SWP update gates other docs?
17:43:01 [tantek]
cwebber2: I agree, that kind of context would be very helpful.
17:43:04 [rhiaro]
... I like sandro's formuatlion that we have a document SWP that documents these parts
17:43:16 [rhiaro]
... And then trying to get them over the finish line
17:43:22 [rhiaro]
... And if we have a way to formalise that I'd really like to
17:43:43 [rhiaro]
... I'm ready to go forward with webmention, I want an understanding of a strategy as a group
17:44:08 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: it sounds like that's a good quesiton to ponder over for next week, and we can resume the discussion next week, possibly with a proposal to move wm to CR on the agenda
17:44:11 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Micropub
17:44:31 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I just sent an email to the group about the current situation
17:44:37 [rhiaro]
... It's also on the github thread
17:44:42 [annbass]
I appreciate Evan's desire and "push" that we have a coordinated understanding and presentation of how these components relate and will roll out
17:44:49 [rhiaro]
... Since last week there has been another new implementation in python
17:44:52 [rhiaro]
... of a server that supports updates
17:45:06 [rhiaro]
... I would like to publish a new working draft of micropub, it's been a while
17:45:13 [rhiaro]
... tha'ts what the implementations are following today
17:45:24 [tantek]
URL to editor's draft?
17:45:25 [aaronpk]
http://micropub.net/draft/#changes-from-01-march-2016-fpwd-to-this-version
17:45:25 [rhiaro]
... Iw ould appreciate being able to take what we have on the current editor's draft and publish that update
17:45:40 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Publish latest editor's draft of Micropub: http://micropub.net/draft/
17:45:55 [eprodrom]
+1
17:45:56 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: not a change of status, just refresh of the WD
17:46:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:46:06 [KevinMarks]
+1
17:46:08 [aaronpk]
+1
17:46:12 [tantek]
+1
17:46:19 [cwebber2]
+1
17:46:19 [annbass]
+1
17:46:32 [tsyesika]
+1
17:46:34 [shevski]
+1
17:46:40 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Publish latest editor's draft of Micropub: http://micropub.net/draft/
17:46:43 [sandro]
+1
17:46:54 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: AS2
17:47:16 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I see editorial issues and a couple of questions and two proposals
17:47:36 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: since last week I cleared out six of the issues that were open
17:47:47 [rhiaro]
... The ones that we still have open: one is a lot of busywork
17:47:56 [rhiaro]
... Required property on all of our examples, I need to add it to all of them
17:48:01 [rhiaro]
... About half way through with that
17:48:30 [rhiaro]
... We have two proposals: they had come up and we had discussed them at our face to face and we had come up with resolutiosn at the face to face on these proposals
17:48:49 [rhiaro]
... One was to add a new type
17:48:55 [rhiaro]
... One was to ??? property ?
17:49:03 [rhiaro]
... jasnell gave a strong -1 on both
17:49:30 [rhiaro]
... I think in the interest of respecting authorship, we've been discussing his counterproposals
17:49:30 [dmitriz]
dmitriz has joined #social
17:49:44 [rhiaro]
... For one we've got a resolved version, and I"m going to be pushing that later this afternoon
17:49:54 [rhiaro]
... The other is still subject to discussion, I'm going to see if I can try to get it closed up
17:50:02 [rhiaro]
... Part of getting it closed up is probaby implementing the proposal
17:50:11 [rhiaro]
... James' objection on the second one was that it wasn't necessary
17:50:19 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: this was dicussed like 3 meetings ago, issue 292
17:50:29 [rhiaro]
... The consensus was we could close it, chris was invovled and then agreed
17:50:33 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-04-05-minutes
17:50:36 [rhiaro]
... You can look up the minutes
17:50:41 [rhiaro]
... I don't know if there's anything more to say about that
17:50:44 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: sounds reasonable
17:51:36 [tantek]
issue URL?
17:51:36 [rhiaro]
Decided to maintain the Relationship class and define a minimal vocabulary for relatinoships
17:51:52 [rhiaro]
... The objection from dmitri was that we did not have a vocuabluary for this relationship class
17:51:58 [rhiaro]
... So we didn't have a vocabulary for types of relationships
17:52:16 [rhiaro]
... There was some discussion about adotoping one or another of the others, some concerns that there was potential for going down ratholes with that
17:52:24 [aaronpk]
https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/289
17:52:34 [rhiaro]
... In particular social relationships have a real culturual bias, what's defined as a friend, varies from platform to platform and culture to culture
17:52:41 [rhiaro]
... What does it mean to be a family member, friend, clsoe friend, etc
17:52:54 [rhiaro]
... So it looks like the consensus that we have is that we define topographical relationships
17:52:57 [rhiaro]
... So in the social graph
17:53:08 [tantek]
aaronpk: huh somehow my comment is last on that issue?
17:53:11 [rhiaro]
... So A is following B, B is following A, A and B are following each other. A is a member of B.
17:53:17 [rhiaro]
... Looks like we have consensus around these
17:53:22 [rhiaro]
... They're in the ED
17:53:27 [KevinMarks]
topographical? mountains?
17:53:29 [rhiaro]
... Not yet pushed, will push after meeting
17:53:32 [rhiaro]
... That would close this
17:53:33 [KevinMarks]
or topological?
17:53:36 [aaronpk]
did i drop the wrong link?
17:53:46 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: the rest is editorial?
17:54:04 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: one is editorial, one about questions and polls where there was a request for another, I"ll see if I can close that for next week too
17:54:11 [eprodrom]
q?
17:54:12 [rhiaro]
... Would be very happy to get these finished and get to a new version of the WD
17:54:15 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: very close
17:54:20 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'd like to
17:54:24 [tantek]
can we publish a new WD? or next week publish a new WD?
17:54:40 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Interest Group
17:55:07 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: The IG has been inactive for quite a while, and before that it was somewhat dormant despite ann's efforts, so ann is asking what should we do with the IG?
17:55:13 [rhiaro]
... 1. Keep it open and try to revive it?
17:55:17 [rhiaro]
... 2. Close it and open a CG
17:55:30 [rhiaro]
... 3. Close it entirely
17:55:36 [rhiaro]
... If we close it entirely what happens to Use Cases?
17:55:52 [rhiaro]
annbass: i have mixed feelings because I don't watn the work we've done to be lost, but on the other hand as a chair I dont' want to pull teeth to try to carry the group along
17:56:48 [rhiaro]
... When I came back I sent an email to the list and asked the group what they want to do, and I was proposing moving it to a CG because that's a bit less process and peopel who are not members of w3c can participate, and it seems to me for this subject there are a lot of peopel who are interested but who are not w3c members and as we know it's hard to be an IE and even harder to get your company or individual to be a member
17:56:49 [tantek]
sandro, didn't you say the existing https://www.w3.org/community/fedsocweb/ Federated Social Web Community Group asked for a time slot at the upcoming TPAC in Lisbon?
17:57:01 [rhiaro]
... Benefit of CG is it's visible to the outside world and people can participate
17:57:11 [rhiaro]
... But when I sent a note to the list, I only got one response from Lloyd who was responsive
17:57:43 [rhiaro]
... I'm happy to continue with the work but I want other people to want that work to happen
17:57:47 [rhiaro]
... I don't want to do it on my own
17:57:57 [eprodrom]
q+
17:58:03 [rhiaro]
... I had discussed this in mail with sandro and wendy, and nor does the w3c want to have a dead horse
17:58:09 [rhiaro]
... We can carry it to next week if necessary, not a crisis
17:58:13 [Arnaud]
ack eprodrom
17:58:22 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: fine taking this to next week also
17:58:41 [rhiaro]
... One option is to appreciate the work that the IG has done up to this point, it has low participation now, and may have served its purpose so far
17:58:49 [rhiaro]
... Maybe we can ask the w3c to provide us with a recommendation
17:58:52 [tantek]
q+ to ask Sandro about FSWCG and TPAC
17:58:58 [rhiaro]
... If the organisation or members want us to continue, make that known, otherwise close it
17:59:00 [tantek]
and +1 to eprodrom
17:59:02 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I tend to agree
17:59:09 [rhiaro]
... The right thing is to close it
17:59:18 [rhiaro]
... THe use cases are not going away, nothing will be deleted
17:59:24 [rhiaro]
annbass: I'm agree
17:59:32 [tantek]
(then are we done? no disagreement?)
17:59:34 [rhiaro]
... I do like the idea of making the use cases visible to the outside world
17:59:48 [rhiaro]
... I can see hwo opaque the w3c work looks to the outside world
18:00:10 [rhiaro]
... Some value in making... you guys had the federated social web cg?
18:00:18 [rhiaro]
... that was slightly different work but possibly this stuff could reside there
18:00:25 [rhiaro]
... Totally open to closing the group, but don't want to lose what's been done
18:00:27 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
18:00:27 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to ask Sandro about FSWCG and TPAC
18:01:03 [rhiaro]
tantek: There's the federated social web CG before the SWWG, has low traffic and interest and hasnt' had a blog post in three years or something, don't know if there's a need for another one especially when there's an existing one with no critical mass
18:01:27 [rhiaro]
Sandro: I was looking at the tpac registration list of meetings the FSWCG is listed as meeting for 3 hours on the firs tmorning of tpac, organised by someone I don't know and have never heard of
18:01:36 [rhiaro]
... I'll get the name
18:01:45 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I'm going to close the call, we're out of time
18:01:48 [rhiaro]
... We don't have to close this now
18:01:54 [annbass]
to clarify, I, too, asked about using the Fed SW CG, rather than start a new one
18:01:58 [rhiaro]
... We probably should just close the IG
18:02:04 [rhiaro]
... Seems to be CG activity gonig on worth investigating
18:02:07 [rhiaro]
... Will leave it here
18:02:09 [rhiaro]
... You can ponder
18:02:11 [sandro]
https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/schedule.html
18:02:20 [sandro]
08:30-10:30 Federated Social Web
18:02:31 [annbass]
sounds good; thanks
18:02:34 [dmitriz]
dmitriz has left #social
18:02:37 [rhiaro]
... Thanks all for joining
18:02:43 [tantek]
rhiaro++ for scribing!
18:02:45 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 203 karma
18:02:52 [shevski]
thank you Arnaud & rhiaro !
18:02:53 [eprodrom]
thanks rhiaro
18:03:07 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
18:03:07 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:03:07 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, shevski, Arnaud, tantek, rhiaro, sandro, cwebber, eprodrom, tsyesika, KevinMarks, annbass
18:03:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:03:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:03:16 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:03:16 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items