16:22:02 RRSAgent has joined #social 16:22:02 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/07-social-irc 16:22:04 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:22:04 Zakim has joined #social 16:22:06 Zakim, this will be SOCL 16:22:06 ok, trackbot 16:22:07 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 16:22:07 Date: 07 June 2016 16:22:11 present+ 16:22:17 present+ 16:22:18 chair: eprodrom 16:22:18 present+ 16:22:28 present + 16:22:50 scribe: sandro 16:22:58 topic: micropub going to CR 16:23:38 eprodrom: It'd be nice to have a going-to-CR checklist 16:23:57 aaronpk: Yesterday we discussed and resolved all the issues 16:24:03 .. I'll go ahead and make the required changes 16:24:07 .. the big things to do are 16:24:14 .. - writing the impl report template 16:24:25 .. - some sort of tool for testing 16:24:34 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/CR-checklist 16:24:35 sandro: thoughts on that?> 16:24:52 aaronpk: two tools, for clients and servers 16:25:17 .. the test server will be something you can use in testing your client 16:25:30 sandro: so it'll be like your current blog but much more strict about the protocol 16:25:51 aaronpk: i'll do it at some URL, then things will disappear after 48 hours or something 16:26:15 aaronpk: to test your own server, I'll make a website act like a client -- posting things to your server. 16:26:52 .. it'll go and create a note, then try to edit it and make sure it's right 16:27:12 sandro: but you can't GET to see if did the right thing.... 16:27:24 sandro: it'd be nice to get Accept: json to see the post data 16:27:39 aaronpk: so that should do it for testing. 16:27:50 aaronpk: - I'll check the normative references 16:28:30 tantek: publish an updated WD first, please 16:29:00 eprodrom: So we've closed our issues, so the resolution will be .... 16:29:25 the_frey has joined #social 16:29:45 sandro: Before going to CR there should be evidence of wide review 16:29:57 aaronpk: IWC discussion 16:30:13 sandro: be good to get it beyond 16:30:26 sandro: evidence is usually random public comments 16:31:04 PROPOSED: publish new editor's draft of Micropub including changes as per resolutions on 6/6 as new working draft 16:31:10 +1 16:31:11 +1 16:31:13 +1 16:31:14 +1 16:31:31 +1 16:31:34 +1 16:31:35 RESOLVED: publish new editor's draft of Micropub including changes as per resolutions on 6/6 as new working draft 16:31:53 how about grievous endorsements 16:32:43 tantek: Let's email public-review-announce@w3.org saying we're at zero issues 16:34:11 sandro: we can do chairs@w3.org and horiz review 16:35:35 sandro: Doing the Transreq at the same time as AS2 could be nice 16:35:37 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/AS2_CR 16:35:48 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Webmention_CR_Transition_Request 16:36:08 re checklist https://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=https://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions2015.html&xslfile=https://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions2015.xsl 16:36:50 q+ 16:37:48 eprodrom: Should micropub include some design rationale to help address questions about how this relates to JSON-LD, AS2, etc 16:39:04 rhiaro: The objection is likely to be that mp uses the mf vocab not the as2 vocab 16:39:19 eprodrom: yes, there's that, too 16:39:49 tantek: feels like FAQ 16:40:02 tantek: There's evidence there's been work on convergence 16:40:44 tantek: The group is aware there's different vocab approaches at work. And has converged them in some places. But in our parallel approaches work mode, we don't see this as a blocking issue. 16:41:06 .. if there's an implementor that comes to the table and finds this a blocking issue, we'd want to know. 16:42:29 sandro: parallel between ap and mp 16:42:52 tantek: things like audience targetting 16:43:14 cwebber2: the ap crud stuff has some addressing happening 16:43:40 cwebber2: But I think that's future work, largely 16:44:16 sandro: Can I use AS2 with MP 16:44:23 rhiaro: No 16:45:01 aaronpk: If you're using the json format, you're posting the object 16:45:38 cwebber2: can I post a video 16:46:25 rhiaro: MP requires the server to understand h-entry, so no 16:46:37 cwebber2: If you want to just have everything be a side effect.... 16:46:55 aaronpk: The tradeoff is whether the spec is generatic and can be used with any vocab or 16:47:01 .. leads to interop 16:47:25 .. Oauth has this problem. It leaves too much unspecificed 16:47:39 .. for interop 16:48:07 tantek: It's an antipattern, where the spec doesn't say enough to make things interop 16:48:27 eprodrom_ has joined #social 16:49:24 cwebber2: maybe over the next few months it might be a fun experiement to see how far you can get crossing the vocabs and the pub protocols, but it might get us into trouble 16:49:59 rhiaro: I use aaron's mp clients and on the server I do a little rearrangement and treat it as AS2 16:50:09 rhiaro: That's not a huge burden 16:50:19 .. but it's not a complete translation, eg on likes 16:50:25 .. it's kind of hacky 16:50:43 .. but it doesn't tell a good story of why we don't just do AS2 16:50:55 .. it doesn't tell a story about why the group i sbothering with this 16:51:33 eprodrom: One reason is if we're going to come together to work together for two years on stand... 16:51:38 sandro: that's the other side 16:52:43 sandro: it sounds like mp has a normative dependency on mf 16:53:13 tantek: we went through this, so MF has parts which are stable enough, to be referenceable 16:53:42 .. so that matches our model of living spec work 16:55:05 sandro: so micropub has to only normatively reference explicitely stable parts of MF 16:55:09 tantek: right 16:55:59 eprodrom: are we on track to CR? are there other bits. 16:56:30 aaronpk: Nope 16:57:12 sandro: So it sounds like we need to be completely upfront about "Two Stacks are Better than Zero Stacks" 16:57:27 eprodrom: Does it make sense to hold up MP to be in sync with AP ? 16:57:53 cwebber2: We don't know what AP needs for CR 16:58:02 aaronpk: I'm worried about that timeline 16:58:36 aaronpk: I have a plan for the validators (eg test suite) 16:58:51 cwebber2: I could maybe have AP reading for CR in a month 16:59:25 aaronpk: I'm concerned about withing for AP when there are unknows for AP 16:59:49 cwebber2: I think AP (without ASub) I could do it within a month or a month and a half.... 17:00:05 eprodrom: I only bring this up because we've talked about this before. 17:01:23 sandro: How about instead we just have each draft in a big box point to the other spec, "THis is one of two SOCIAL APIS from the socwg, with sltihgly different use cases and approahced, implementors should check ou tht eother one" 17:01:29 tantek: (wording above) 17:01:41 "This is one of two client APIs being produced by the working group with slightly different use cases and approaches. implementers should check out and review the other approach here." 17:01:43 tantek: That would greatly help communicate this to the outside world, yes. 17:02:11 tantek: It helps show that clearly these are clearly from the same group 17:03:33 s/MF/microformats 17:04:12 microacts? 17:04:19 (microactgressions?????) 17:04:25 aaronpk: Conclusion is proceed not in lockstep 17:05:37 eprodrom: Let's have cwebber2 on the MP/AS2 transition call, so he knows what to expect 17:05:48 and the next WD of both activitypub and micropub will include the section linking to each other 17:06:12 sandro: should be fine, yeah, I think 17:07:47 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/AS2_CR 17:08:03 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Webmention_CR_Transition_Request 17:08:31 sandro: maybe we can do an editing session on these later today 17:08:48 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/CR-checklist 17:09:10 sandro did you mean like this for Micropub? https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Micropub_CR 17:09:16 yes 17:12:09 tantek, re horizontal review: https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview 17:12:24 seven review groups 17:16:24 dromasca has joined #social 17:19:48 cwebber2: have you ever seen https://github.com/activitystreams/activity-api ? 17:20:29 bengo has joined #social 17:22:03 paul has joined #social 17:22:50 scribe: tantek 17:23:11 eprodrom: huh, I hadn't seen that! 17:23:14 RESUME 17:23:15 Topic: Webmention next steps 17:23:16 30-45 min on this 17:23:29 aaronpk: what is the goal for the end? 17:23:50 eprodrom: if we have any additional work to move forward, and we know what actions we need to do to move forward, or ok if have no actions to do 17:24:03 sandro: would be nice to close open issues 17:24:11 eprodrom: where are we in the process? 17:24:22 aaronpk: we ar waiting for implementation reports 17:24:36 aaronpk: I can build more tools for testing a webmention receiver 17:24:54 aaronpk: I have a couple of issues on webmention.rocks about how to create tests for this feature in the spec 17:25:05 aaronpk: rest of issues on wmr are my to do list 17:25:16 sandro: perhaps we can help with brainstorming those too 17:25:34 sandro: procedurally, in two more weeks we are at the end of our CR period 17:25:52 sandro: if we've closed all issues, and exit criteria have been met, then we do another transition meeting 17:25:58 sandro: or can be sometimes done by email 17:26:22 sandro: then at that point we go to Proposed Recommendation, it gets republished 17:26:31 aaronpk: change CR to PR and hit publish again? 17:26:40 sandro: yes, and there's the drafting the email to the AC 17:26:46 tantek: how long ac has to vote 17:26:49 sandro: four weeks 17:27:10 sandro: assuming that has no formal objection (occasionally there is), then there's one more transition meeting 17:27:25 sandro: which is often waived if everything goes smoothly, and then it gets published as a Recommendation 17:28:00 sandro: there is also Horizontal Review 17:29:19 eprodrom: in terms of implementations, is there value for us to be seeking implementations from member organizations? 17:29:42 eprodrom: is it worth our time to look down the list of member organizations ? 17:30:34 eprodrom: it may be more compelling case if we have high profile implementers 17:31:02 eprodrom: other companies? 17:31:50 eprodrom: Medium? 17:32:11 sandro: What about WordPress extension? 17:33:14 paul: my company is interested in Micropub and maybe Webmention 17:33:38 eprodrom: there are also comment SaaS services, like echo, intense?, disqus 17:33:47 eprodrom: may be worth reaching out to 17:33:59 paul: if we implement the standard in our company, what should I do? 17:34:05 aaronpk: one way is to submit the implementation report 17:34:32 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/tree/master/implementation-reports 17:34:44 paul ^ 17:34:47 aaronpk: if you are a member of a group you can join a teleconference and demonstrate 17:35:02 sandro: there is no need to demo, but you can if you want 17:35:08 aaronpk: official way is to submit the implementation report 17:35:43 eprodrom: other tasks? 17:36:09 aaronpk: open issues 17:36:09 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues 17:36:16 aaronpk: and an email 17:37:45 sandro: I can close the one I opened for folks to voice an alternative "Webmention should use JSON-LD" #47 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/47 17:38:17 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/42 17:38:22 aaronpk: one with the most comments 17:39:17 aaronpk: main issue is regarding verifying behind paywalls 17:39:44 aaronpk: if you have a document like a PDF that is restricted, then create a separate page that the document references, so that there's an actual page with the document's metadata 17:39:50 aaronpk: there are a lot of benefits to that 17:40:39 eprodrom: I think the resolution you proposed makes sense 17:40:42 q+ 17:40:47 eprodrom: there are two specifics here, one is format 17:40:55 eprodrom: the second is private documents 17:40:57 q- 17:41:13 aaronpk: webmentions for private documents where the receiver is expected to have a login is fine and not that much of a challenge 17:41:26 aaronpk: the difference here is where the receiver may not have access to the document 17:41:34 eprodrom: is that notification worthwhile? 17:41:42 aaronpk: what is the goal of that notification in the first place? 17:41:45 sandro: kind of harmless 17:41:59 sandro: or maybe you're revealing private information 17:42:10 aaronpk: this is specifically about you need to pay to get access to this journal 17:42:29 sandro: he provides some text, which I think is unnecessary 17:42:50 sandro: if there is already a trusted relationship, then there's no need 17:42:56 (where "sender" in his proposal should be read as "owner of the source") 17:43:13 aaronpk: I think what he was getting at is not actually going to work because webmention is a thin payload 17:44:46 aaronpk: or I could add something with the suggestion, if you have restricted / paid access content, you should create a landing page for that content that is public that has the links 17:45:28 tantek: issue opener asks for that in his last comment 17:45:32 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/42#issuecomment-222242255 17:45:42 aaronpk: do you think doing that will satisfy the commenter and benefit the spec 17:46:21 aaronpk: not sure where it will go? 17:46:27 tantek: maybe an appendix? 17:47:24 aaronpk: maybe in privacy considerations? 17:47:34 PROPOSAL: Close webmention #42, saying we'll include text suggesting landing pages for this kind of paywall scenario 17:47:35 tantek: not really that close to that, that means something else usually 17:47:37 +1 17:47:39 +1 17:47:40 +1 17:47:44 +1 17:47:45 +1 17:47:51 +1 17:47:56 RESOLVED: Close webmention #42, saying we'll include text suggesting landing pages for this kind of paywall scenario 17:49:19 aaronpk: next issue https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/44 17:50:11 sandro: maybe just editorial 17:50:19 tantek: how is conformance class editorial? 17:50:23 sandro: no code has to change 17:50:28 aaronpk: not going to change any implementations 17:50:34 sandro: would be easier to read 17:50:48 sandro: hesitate because maybe other classes of proxy 17:51:33 aaronpk: tantek do you remember when we talked about this? 17:51:43 tantek: proxy receivers cannot conform to the quoted implementation requirement in the issue? 17:51:46 aaronpk: why not? 17:52:40 rhiaro: difference between proxy for a site, and proxy for any webmention 17:52:50 tantek: my statement is true in either case 17:53:14 aaronpk: the "receiver" does not have to accept the target domain's rules 17:53:32 s/difference between proxy for a site/difference between proxy that requires explicit signup by target 17:53:50 sandro: maybe we can test for proxy receivers? 17:55:01 aaronpk: maybe same origin distinction? 17:55:32 +1 "some-origin" + "proxy" receivers 17:55:59 s/some/same 17:57:24 tantek: I think the intent of this requirement was that the receiver at the target's domain knows that the target is a valid resource, like the page / redirect actually exists 17:58:50 sandro: maybe I want to accept webmentions for all pages, 404s, and use that to learn of bad links and create redirects 17:59:18 tantek: if we are making it possible for any target to be a valid resource then what is the point of this conformance requirement 17:59:50 aaronpk: the point of this sentence is that receivers should not accept just all webmentions 18:00:26 aaronpk: another example is perhaps a paid proxy that receives webmentions on behalf of others, and if someone's account expires, then the proxy would stop accepting webmentions on behalf of the target 18:01:17 sandro: maybe expand on the "valid resource" 18:01:38 aaronpk: I think that's a good way to handle this 18:01:59 including , :for example some servers (wm.io) might accept anything, while other endpoints only accept one particular target URL 18:02:38 aaronpk: so I will add a "for example" informative text, clarifying the original meaning of that sentence 18:02:40 sandro: This is an editorial change, trying to better express the editor's intent and WG's understanding 18:02:45 tantek: does not change implementations? 18:02:48 aaronpk: no, does not 18:03:21 WG decided it's an editorial change, ok with aaronpk's edits 18:04:09 aaronpk: let's discuss 40 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/40 18:04:13 bengo has joined #social 18:04:50 aaronpk: the issue proves the reason for the link header in the HTTP headers 18:05:03 aaronpk: the proposed solutions do not match the issue raised 18:05:08 aaronpk: Moving link header to MAY would mean it is no longer possible to do dsiverovery on non-HTML 18:05:22 sandro: the suggestions break interoperability 18:05:29 aaronpk: and they don't back up the original statement of the problem 18:06:18 aaronpk: I could add, if the content type is HTML, then look at the HTML tags 18:06:35 sandro: if if is not HTML then can you look at the body? 18:06:55 aaronpk: the discovery section does not mention any other document types 18:07:05 aaronpk: which is fine because the LINK header supports everything 18:07:13 aaronpk: the actual phrasing in the spec could be clarified 18:07:17 Arnaud has joined #social 18:07:31 aaronpk: so that if the content type is not HTML you should not be trying to parse it as HTML 18:08:55 eprodrom: from a discovery standpoint, is there a phrasing along the lines of, implementers may ... 18:09:14 sandro: I don't want that may, e.g. if I'm publishing turtle, I don't want to be unsure about discovery 18:09:55 aaronpk: I was trying to use the more positive phrasing 18:10:11 aaronpk: non-HTML documents MUST use the LINK header for their webmention discovery 18:10:47 eprodrom: next year a new document format comes out and has a linking mechanism and too burdensome to use the LINK header 18:10:52 eprodrom: that seems unlikely 18:11:35 aaronpk: the goal is interop 18:11:43 aaronpk: more ways to discover = less interop 18:11:54 aaronpk: the cost being potentially fewer documents that can use it 18:12:04 aaronpk: I think we're fine for the current level of things being published 18:12:10 aaronpk: and adding this clarification text is fine 18:12:25 aaronpk: totally up for adding the explicit: non-HTML documents must advertise using the HTTP LINK header 18:12:28 PROPOSED: Close webmention #40 with editorial revision clarifying that one should only look for HTML tag if content is HTML. Non-HTML resources MUST use the HTTP Link header for discovery. Each additional discovery mechanism imposes a cost on every sender, which we want to avoid. 18:12:34 aaronpk: also helps show that the spec has thought things through 18:12:41 +1 18:12:44 +1 18:12:46 +1 18:13:04 +1 18:13:13 +1 18:14:00 tantek: in the rare instance we see what eprodrom is talking about, that can be handled by a spec revision 18:14:28 RESOLVED: Close webmention #40 with editorial revision clarifying that one should only look for HTML tag if content is HTML. Non-HTML resources MUST use the HTTP Link header for discovery. Each additional discovery mechanism imposes a cost on every sender, which we want to avoid. 18:14:32 bblfish has joined #social 18:15:13 bengo has joined #social 18:15:45 sandro: 46? https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/46 18:16:43 aaronpk: it may potentially cut down on abuse 18:17:09 eprodrom: an abuse is someone sends webmentions with the source is a 404 18:17:17 aaronpk: or the source is a giant video file 18:17:24 sandro: how is a HEAD request better? 18:17:42 aaronpk: because if I get a content type of video I can ignore it 18:17:46 sandro: spec? 18:17:53 aaronpk: spec says what to do with different media types 18:18:05 aaronpk: all examples. intentionally left open for other media types 18:18:08 bengo has joined #social 18:18:16 aaronpk: e.g. if there's a way you can find a link in a PDF, you can send a webmention with a source of a PDF 18:18:57 sandro: the verifier should put an ACCEPT header that says what media types they can verify links in 18:19:01 aaronpk: oooh 18:19:06 sandro: what about size? 18:19:13 aaronpk: spec says something about that for HTML 18:19:28 aaronpk: it's not required to implement a limit, but if they do, they would only fetch the first megabyte 18:19:38 sandro: how would you do that? 18:19:51 sandro: dropping the connection after a 1MB and then 100MB is still in the pipe? or a range request 18:20:08 sandro: not sure how many support range requests 18:20:32 aaronpk: if you do end up downloading, you can only parse first 1MB 18:21:23 sandro: ok with may, some techniques include, setting right media types on your ACCEPT header, aggressively closing the connection if its a media type you don't know what to do with 18:22:00 tantek: is ACCEPT header in the spec? 18:22:02 aaronpk: that's worth adding to the spec 18:22:39 aaronpk: is this guidance? 18:22:44 aaronpk: adding to limit on get requests? 18:22:48 sandro: yes 18:23:31 aaronpk: perhaps the receiver SHOULD provide an ACCEPT header of the media types they accept 18:25:51 sandro: is this DDOS related? 18:26:08 eprodrom: it sounds like our suggestion is to use ACCEPT header ... 18:26:15 aaronpk: you can still do a HEAD request if you want 18:26:24 aaronpk: I could put it in security considerations 18:26:27 s/is this DDOS related?/do we have a DDOS vulnerability here? kind of off-topic/ 18:26:30 eprodrom: yes 18:26:57 tantek: is the ACCEPT header a should? 18:27:06 aaronpk: that would affect every implementation 18:28:12 sandro: I would say SHOULD if we weren't at this point in the process 18:29:12 sandro: all same weight on the accept header is important. don't have any numeric values on them. equally weighted. 18:29:48 aaronpk: this is related to HTTP 18:30:05 tantek: because you call out specific content types it would be good to note how that works here 18:30:35 jet has joined #social 18:31:07 PROPOSED: Add text to security considerations for Webmention to suggest using HEAD request during verification, AND add text to Verification section to suggest using Accept header 18:31:41 PROPOSED: Add text to security considerations for Webmention to suggest using HEAD request during verification, AND add text to Verification section to suggest using Accept header closing issue #46 18:32:18 not "suggest using HEAD" but "clarified that it is allowed to use HEAD" 18:32:29 +1 18:32:30 +1 18:32:31 +1 18:32:39 +1 18:32:46 PROPOSED: Add text to security considerations for Webmention to clarify that it allowed to use HEAD request during verification, AND add text to Verification section to suggest using Accept header closing issue #46 18:32:51 +1 18:32:57 RESOLVED: Add text to security considerations for Webmention to clarify that it allowed to use HEAD request during verification, AND add text to Verification section to suggest using Accept header closing issue #46 18:33:21 eprodrom: that resolves the issues that we have 18:33:32 eprodrom: let's take a 5 min break and finish with AS2 before noon 18:33:37 break: 18:34:32 5 min 18:40:08 Paul departs meeting 18:40:12 scribe: rhiaro 18:40:16 eprodrom: let's get started 18:40:26 sandro: should Tantek chair 18:40:35 tantek: ok 18:40:39 chair: tantek 18:41:04 TOPIC: AS2 18:41:17 tantek: next steps on as2? Still talking about getting to CR 18:41:18 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues 18:41:22 eprodrom: Link to issues ^ 18:41:42 ... We discussed CR a bit yesterday. These are all editorial points 18:42:09 these all look good 18:42:11 ... Linking to implentationr eports, template, linking to test suite, submission process, change links to repo, adding a note about dropping features 18:42:22 ... Things that don't get implemented will be dropped 18:42:26 ... Update a couple of references, eg. CURIE 18:42:30 ... Making AS1 an informative reference 18:42:36 ... Pushing the JSON-LD context 18:42:48 sandro: json-ld context is done 18:42:54 eprodrom: grea 18:42:55 t 18:43:07 ... There are these editing tasks I'll get to in the next day or so 18:43:21 ... Then we'll push a new WD with them.. don't know if we need to do another resolution? 18:43:31 tantek: didn't we resolve yesterday? 18:43:34 eprodrom: no we did one last week 18:43:37 ... For some of these but not all 18:43:59 tantek: my experience is that editorial changes, unless there's an objection, you can push a new WD 18:44:06 eprodrom: I'll finish these this week and push new WD 18:44:12 ... Next steps are CR transition meeting 18:44:18 ... Which we've discussed doing along with micropub 18:44:21 ... And then implementations 18:44:24 ... That's going to be an interesting next step 18:44:42 ... On my plate is .. it's clear that we have a couple dozen .. somewhere between 10 and 20 implementations of AS1 18:44:50 ... It's on the wiki 18:45:18 ... I'll find it 18:45:28 ... We have a list of implementations of AS1, they're clearly good targets for discussing AS2 18:45:44 ... Next steps there will be contacting the companies on that list, letting them know we're moving to CR and we'd like to get their implementation reports 18:45:56 ... Which will not only stimulate getting reports, but also implementors 18:46:02 ... After that I'm not sure what else we need to do 18:46:14 ... Is there additional work that needs to go into AS2? 18:46:18 ... Hopefully more feedback after CR 18:46:41 tantek: I'm specifically looking to see what percentage of AS1 implementations (that are current - there are old ones that nobody has touched for years, dont expect those) to adopt AS2 18:46:45 ... That should be our goal 18:46:48 ... And then there's greenfield 18:47:23 eprodrom: It's a question of finding the conversations with potential implementors 18:47:35 ... For me personally if AS2 is not taking up as much of my time, I"d like to help out chris with activitypub 18:47:39 ... that might be the best place to be putting myt ime 18:47:42 ... Not that I have that much time. 18:47:47 cwebber2: any help appreciated 18:47:59 eprodrom: And should inform.. also means any activitypub implementations are by definition AS2 implementations 18:48:28 sandro: just looking at the transition request for it, in reverse order: we should link to the implementations so far, which would at least be the empty implementation report repo 18:48:38 ... But if we know of some already, even withotu reports, would be good to enumerate them and show something going on 18:49:00 ... For wide review, I don't know about wide review for AS2. There's tons of github issues. Have we sent emails or announcements we can point to? 18:49:06 eprodrom: Good idea to send emails out to old AS lists 18:49:22 tantek: edit the activitystrea.ms page? 18:49:31 eprodrom: That will be a good way to get wide review 18:49:46 tantek: mediawiki sends an update to everyone who has ever edited that page, so out of the blue they'll get a notification with that diff 18:50:05 aaronpk: wiki.activitystrea.ms vs homepage 18:50:12 tantek: believe homepage is on a github 18:50:34 https://github.com/activitystreams/website 18:52:25 eprodrom: updating activitystreams website, emails to older mailing lists, maybe updates to open social people..? 18:52:37 ... The mailing lists are gone, so would be going through contacs lists 18:52:41 tantek: you can do a pr to the website? 18:52:48 eprodrom: I can, not sure if I have permissions to edit 18:52:57 sandro: this level of outreach could be done after transition request 18:52:59 eprodrom: yeh 18:53:07 ... And going after list of 1.0 implementors 18:53:22 ... There may be worthwhile prodcuing a document or wikipage, AS2 for people who implemented 1 18:53:57 sandro: does anyone have a clever idea of how to count how many issues are from inside or outside wg? 200 is a lot to go through 18:55:07 rhiaro: not insurmountable to do it by hand if necessary 18:55:24 eprodrom: identifying folks who have participated in issues who are not wg members we should do before CR meeting 18:55:27 ... Anything else? 18:56:02 aaronpk: this may not be related, but when we're trying to get people to implement AS2, what is the incentive for people who are not memers to implement the draft before it's an actual rec? 18:56:12 sandro: so if they come across a problem there's still time to fix it 18:56:35 ... It's unlikely to change, but ifit's going to change.. i tey're oing to hit a fatal problem with it it's better to know that before it's to late to change it 18:56:55 eprodrom: there are companies like getstream.io, activitystreams is their business 18:57:03 ... They may want to have that as.. 'we are the first implementors of AS2' 18:57:25 sandro: also w3c can do some press around recs, testimonials, quotes from early adopters, so chance to get into that press cycle 18:57:30 ... Usually if they're w3c members 18:57:36 eprodrom: Sounds like we're moving forward 18:58:00 ... We have some evangalism to do, but otherwise we're waiting for feedback after CR to see if there are any normative changes 18:58:05 ... I think we're fiished with AS2 18:58:11 ... And it's 12 18:58:37 TOPIC: Lunch 19:00:56 yum 19:30:59 tantek has joined #social 19:47:06 tantek_ has joined #social 19:53:13 aaronpk, eprodrom: perhaps worth mentioning in the transition request re: AS2 & Micropub: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Microformats_Mapping 19:56:27 KevinMarks has joined #social 20:04:34 Zakim has left #social 20:06:03 come back Zakim 20:06:05 we miss you 20:08:49 bengo has joined #social 20:10:15 Lunchtime discussion of http://brighton.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~prajlich/forster.html ("The Machine Stops", 1909) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Babel_fish 20:10:46 "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. " 20:18:04 bblfish has joined #social 20:29:49 bblfish, is your name a reference to HHGTTG? What was your thinking in adopting the name? 20:57:10 eprodrom has joined #social 20:57:37 my lunch went late; I'll be back soon 21:21:26 bblfish has joined #social 21:22:06 eprodrom_ has joined #social 21:22:35 eprodrom has joined #social 21:23:13 eprodrom has joined #social 21:26:14 scribe: rhiaro 21:26:16 chair: eprodrom 21:26:25 TOPIC: Post type discovery 21:26:42 eprodrom: Beena a while since we've seen a new version of this 21:26:53 https://tantek.github.io/post-type-discovery/ 21:26:57 tantek: you've never seen a publication ready version, here it is 21:27:20 ... The only normative change to this since the last version is that more people have started publishing video posts so video got added to the algorithm 21:27:22 ... a one line change 21:27:28 ... This is there, as well as the source 21:27:41 https://github.com/tantek/post-type-discovery/blob/gh-pages/index-src.html 21:28:12 ... I'd like to know if folks are still okay with publishing what was there before, just took a while to get a draft (thanks ben_thatmustbeme) 21:28:18 ... Re-propose to publish a WD 21:28:29 eprodrom: I'll ask a couple of questions first 21:28:37 ... Main changes since the last version is that it's been respec'd 21:28:40 ... I count 5 issues 21:28:55 ... Any value to us in resolving these issues before we produce a WD? 21:29:00 tantek: before the FPWD? 21:29:03 ... Good question 21:29:11 ... Last time I looked at them they seemed like good ideas to do but not blockers 21:29:16 https://github.com/tantek/post-type-discovery/issues 21:29:24 ... But if there's a specific one there that anyone sees as a blocker or might be a blocker, then we should explore it 21:29:49 eprodrom: The question about 'why' would be the first that strikes me 21:29:59 https://github.com/tantek/post-type-discovery/issues/4 21:29:59 ... The other ones seem to be.. number 5 sounds interesting but more theoretical 21:30:11 ... Not sure if 2 is subsumbed by 4 21:30:20 ... If we were going to hold of FPWD, 4 would be the one I'd say 21:30:26 tantek: Let's look at that one then 21:30:50 ... Last year, when we resolved to publish the first time. sandro raised. 21:30:58 ... First, we're doing the general how-does-this-fit-in for all the drafts 21:31:44 ... it references AS2 and AS2 vocab in informative explanations for, like examples. That's in the document itself, there's no summary that explains document relationship with AS2 21:32:09 ... I'll take an action to add something informative for that 21:32:52 eprodrom: I feel like the abstract clearly says ... *reads abstract* ... so you odn't have a post type (check), you want to determine the type of that post (check) -> this is sthe algorithm to do it 21:32:55 ... It feels like the motivation is fairly clear 21:33:03 q? 21:33:09 chair: eprodrom 21:33:10 ... sandro since this came from you, is there more to this? 21:33:10 q+ 21:33:12 sandro: I don't remember 21:33:29 https://tantek.github.io/post-type-discovery/ 21:34:08 ack cwebber 21:34:18 ack cwebber2 21:34:35 cwebber2: one of the major things I was interested in this was, that makes it really useful to the group, especially with having mp and ap moving forward at the same time, is that it provides a bridge between the things we currently have in the group 21:34:51 ... you're able to mvoe from something you don't have specific types in a micropub type system, and you can move to a system with types 21:35:05 ... That's one of the major questions in this group anyway, how do you justify these two different stacks, it seems like this is helpful 21:35:08 ... So maybe putting that somewhere higher 21:35:23 ... Right now as2 is mentioned in 2.1 seems like maybe it would be useful in the introduction 21:35:25 tantek: yep 21:35:42 ... I like that.. bridge between systems without explicit post types to those with explicit post types 21:35:45 ... connects it to two of our documents 21:39:27 sandro/tantek: *discussion of microformats that I didn't minute because I thought it would be brief and informative but is still going on* 21:42:04 https://github.com/tantek/post-type-discovery/issues/4#issuecomment-224422033 21:42:34 tantek: totally okay with saying we have to have text like this before we publish fpwd 21:42:58 ... What do you think, evan? 21:42:59 "Post type discovery helps provide a bridge between systems without explicit post types (e.g. Micropub, jf2) to systems with explicit post types (e.g. ActivityPub, Activity Streams)." 21:43:18 eprodrom: That's more explicit than what's in there now, and says why PTD is important 21:43:45 tantek: I'll just keep tha tissue open until I've made the edit 21:44:01 eprodrom: that would close that issue I belive... sandro? 21:44:15 sandro: *implied yes* 21:44:21 eprodrom: are there other issues on here that would block fpwd? 21:45:54 tantek: this is useful to get agreement between things that are rec track, so probably should be rec track 21:45:57 eprodrom: is that a decisionw e need now? 21:45:59 sandro: kind of 21:46:05 cwebber2: we should see if we already decided that 21:46:22 Rec track or not? 21:46:30 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Oct/0020.html 21:48:20 rhiaro: the vague language is not good for rec track, would be clearer how it's useful if it specifically used AS2 terms. eg. RSVP post doesn't exist in AS2 21:48:26 tantek: I agree, needs work 21:48:34 eprodrom: If this was rec track, is this testable? 21:48:37 tantek: definitely 21:48:40 needs specific examples for generating AS2 objects 21:49:04 eprodrom: if you were using it in an abstract way, you have an untyped format and a typed format itw ould be hard to test 21:49:19 tantek: the algorithm is very generic, so you could test it by parsing an untyped format and outputitng a string to say this is the type 21:49:21 eprodrom: that is testable 21:49:31 sandro: the code would be much shorter than the spec 21:49:33 ... Just an if statement 21:49:54 tantek: we could also have conformance classes like if you are an AS2 generating application you must generate the following objects from the following types 21:50:08 ... If you want to open an issue on conformance classes that would help 21:50:43 ... If we get more implementors we can point them at this to say if you're consuming untyped data, this is how you get to AS2 21:50:49 ... Another possible source for untyped data is RSS 21:51:07 ... Various sites that do RSS feeds of their activities that have made stuff up. I can research to see if there's something I can add to post type discovery to make that more explicit 21:51:13 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-01-05-minutes 21:51:17 sandro: I found a resolution from January to publish PTD as FPWD 21:51:31 ... Still not about rec track 21:51:44 tantek: we hadn't said note track explicitly 21:52:20 PROPOSED: Publish first public working draft of Post Type Discovery including edits agreed upon during this meeting 21:52:35 +1 21:52:36 +1 21:52:38 +1 21:52:47 sandro: what's the shortname? 21:52:51 ... post-type-discovery? 21:52:58 +1 21:53:40 +1 21:53:43 RESOLVED: Publish first public working draft of Post Type Discovery including edits agreed upon during this meeting 21:53:46 RRSAgent, pointer? 21:53:46 See http://www.w3.org/2016/06/07-social-irc#T21-53-46 21:54:01 eprodrom: tantek do you need help with that process? 21:54:04 tantek: probably.. 21:54:26 ... If I get stuck I'll ask for help 21:58:20 *** crisis as we notice trackbot hasn't been logging since this morning ** 21:58:40 eprodrom: we need to remember to produce logs from Loqi 21:59:14 ... We're now on the tip of 3pm. We have a resolution to go to fpwd. Do we have anything else to talk about PTD this afternoon? 21:59:18 tantek: not unless there's another blocking issue 22:00:09 eprodrom: ten minute break 22:04:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc 22:04:31 pretty much the best animation 22:06:50 (break) 22:07:02 rhiaro: I'm looking at https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/blob/gh-pages/respec.html 22:16:06 chair: tantek 22:17:55 interruption with figuring out repo moving to w3 22:20:18 https://help.github.com/articles/closing-issues-via-commit-messages/ 22:23:31 FYI: https://tantek.github.io/post-type-discovery/ is up to date with edits agreed at this meeting 22:24:04 tantek: evan, what are we doing with PuSH? 22:24:08 eprodrom: I'll give a quick overview and where it's at 22:24:19 ... PuSH was originally developed by bradfitz and bret (?) from Google 22:24:32 ... it was a protocol which they published along with an implementation which is the google hub 22:24:43 ... Basically a push-based feed system where you can subscribe to feeds and receive fat pings 22:25:29 ... THe first version 0.3 had a number of interesting characteristics, one is that it only was defined for atom feeds. Another was that it had a kind of complicated set of roles; a publisher and subscriber, and then a 'hub' so you can set it up so the publisher and subscriber don't have to scale, but the hub does 22:25:43 ... At its height, all google feeds were PuSH were enabled: buzz, blogger, feedburner 22:25:49 ... It was pretty well implemented at google 22:26:01 ... a third part implementation called superfeedr was also enabled for tumblr, wordpress.com, a number of others 22:26:11 ... it kind of hit a peak where it was enabled for a lot of rss and atom feeds 22:26:13 KevinMarks has joined #social 22:26:21 ... There were a few issues that made having a new version make sense 22:26:53 http://superfeedr-misc.s3.amazonaws.com/pubsubhubbub-core-0.4.html 22:26:53 ... When the community and business groups at w3c first started, PuSH was one of the first CGs, the lead was Julian (sp?), the ceo of superfeedr 22:26:59 https://www.w3.org/community/pubsub/ 22:26:59 ... The made a new version of the spec 22:27:22 ... the 0.4 version was implemented by superfeedr and google 22:27:26 tantek: and by aaronpk 22:27:30 aaronpk: hub is switchboard 22:27:55 eprodrom: big changes in 0.4, communication between publisher and hub. Redefined how to do publication and subscription for things that aren't atom feeds 22:28:00 ... anything that can have a url can be subscribed to 22:28:14 tantek: I'm supporting that on my site, publishing via PuSH 0.4 using superfeedr 22:28:18 eprodrom: awesome 22:28:33 ... At the same time, PuSH 0.3 had been incorporated in ostatus which was mostlly atom based 22:28:40 ... and it was implemented by most of the ostatus implementers 22:28:44 ... statusnet, diaspora, friendica 22:28:48 ... was relatively easy to implement 22:28:56 ... if you used a 3rd party hub it was trivial 22:29:02 ... or if you did it yourself still relatively easy 22:29:14 ... I think when we started this group the question came up of what role PuSH 0.4 or later would play for us 22:29:20 ... And we ran into a couple of problems 22:30:04 ... First was that when the open web foundation was first announced, google had announced that they would be putting a number of specs under the open web foundation patent license and so there are blog posts to that effect, but they never actually published the paperwork that says, signed at the bottom, this is under this patent 22:30:36 ... By the time that we started to be interested in this, and having it as a w3c spec, the peopel who worked on it were no longer working on it and there did not seem to be as much of an institutional interest in this kind of standardisation around feeds 22:30:53 ... Fast forward to now, the superfeedr hub was just acquired by medium 22:30:57 sandro: how many people worked there? 22:31:00 eprodrom: half a dozen to 10 22:31:15 ... Fewer and fewer of their customers were using PuSH, most were transitioning to using their own apis 22:31:29 ... tumblr, foursquare had had it, but stopped. Fewer feeds out there that are PuSH enabled 22:31:34 ... I haven't checked the google hub in a while, probably should 22:31:39 ... *checks* 22:31:41 ... It's live on the web 22:31:42 https://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/ 22:31:53 ... Still possible to use 22:32:05 ... Protocol is being used somewhat 22:32:12 ... I think we have some question about what role it will play for us 22:32:29 ... There are implementations. We have done a CG incubation for it, so there is an affinity with w3c 22:32:36 ... So it does make sense. Those are kind of on the positive side. 22:32:48 ... On the negative side we have the IP confusion, which is hard to follow and get to a solution 22:32:55 ... And there's a quesiton of does it fit into the stack 22:33:00 ... The stacks that we're using 22:33:17 ... I think when we talk about AP it does not use PuSH for subscription distribution. It has its own. 22:33:32 ... For the webmention/micropub world it plays a bigger role, but not sure how big 22:33:43 tantek: the number of implementations more than doubled because of indieweb community adoption 22:33:50 ... There are multiple hubs 22:34:42 ... Now we have some diversity of hubs and implementaiton experience and it seems like everyone's... people are using different hubs and publishing to differnet hubs, and everything seems to work. I don't think we've run into interop problems where your site can only go to one hub because of how it's implemented, or where a reader support consuming PuSH 0.4 and support consuming atom or h-feed real time via PuSH 0.4, seems to work with all of the hubs that 22:34:42 have been developed 22:34:47 sandro: they're all using h-feed? 22:34:49 tantek: some use atom 22:35:03 ... There's basically been really good implementation incubation and maybe we're all sidestepping the problems in the spec? 22:35:21 aaronpk: the reason they all are working together is that the holes that were left in the spec we have all filled in the same way because of the tutorial on the indiewebcamp wiki 22:35:29 ... In a couple of places where the spec doesn't say what to do, I just said 'do this' 22:35:37 sandro: I read 0.4 on Sunday and I was like... this is so full of holes 22:35:42 aaronpk: but it's also .. theyr'e not that big, you can fill them 22:35:48 sandro: but if you don't fill them you don't have interop 22:35:53 aaronpk: one side, but not all the way through 22:35:59 ... Specifically the notifying the hub of new content is not in the spec 22:36:11 sandro: intentionally left out. Also what the notifications from the hub are is left out. Gaping hole. 22:36:24 aaronpk: but if you're in an ecosystem where everyone is publishing and expecting the same type of content it works 22:36:39 sandro: the press around it is all about fat pings, but indiewebcamp doesnt' use it for fat pings. There's no format defined for what a fat ping would look like 22:36:48 tantek: we have specifically chosen to use the thin pings subset of o.4 22:37:00 sandro: 0.4 doesn't talk about that. There's nothing in the spec about what you send. 22:37:09 tantek: we just send the url of the thing that's been updated? 22:37:14 sandro: what media type? form-encoded? 22:37:21 aaronpk: it says form encoded 22:37:29 http://indiewebcamp.com/how-to-push 22:37:30 ... This is my guide that I wrote 22:37:53 ... And if you go look at the section how to subscribe, it walks you through every part of the request, including receiving notifications, including separate sections for standard and fat pings 22:38:03 ... For standard it says will not contain a body 22:38:21 ... If you receive an empty notification, treat this as an update to the url 22:38:31 eprodrom: talk at a more political or editorial or work level 22:38:52 sandro: the takeaway from this description is that PuSH 0.4 by itself is not useful to us, but refined the way aaron has is useful for some subset 22:39:01 eprodrom: well it is being used, so in that case 22:39:17 ... We have two or three options... we take the PuSH 0.4 and take it to soe sort of rec level right now and kind of steward it through that process 22:39:44 ... The other is that we take the PuSH 0.4, make an 0.5 that clarifies some of the things that we're doing, but maybe talks about what's specifically being used in the indieweb community 22:39:58 ... Third is that we don't do anything with it and accept that it's a community standard but that we don't necessarily have anything to add to it 22:40:16 sandro: One more: to change the name... like you said for 0.5 but say 'inspired by' 22:40:41 eprodrom: right, we could do something similar. When you do discovery you could do it for some other name, like not 'hub' it's 'publisher' or something 22:41:09 cwebber2: which ones of those are possible within IP if we don't get google to give it up.. how risky is that? 22:41:36 eprodrom: google is a member of w3c, if we decided to publish a new version of this spec, part of tha tprocess would be a call for exclusions, which is they say they have ip considerations that would block publication of this spec 22:41:52 ... It does not seem like we could get to a point of being at PR and causing problems with murky ip around this spec 22:41:57 ... The problem would get solved 22:42:11 ... And the people who are being paid a lot of money to figur eout google's IP will do it instead of you or me 22:42:47 tantek: I would say that if we took on PuSH as a work item in this group whether called that or called something else, then if we successfully produced a rec, it would put it in a stronger .. or in a more implementable with less ip concern situation than we have today 22:43:00 ... in that there would be at least some degree of w3c participating member committments implied or explicit through that process 22:43:46 ... The larger/first issue to resolve before the ip issue is that there was the CG, Julian still felt very strongly about editing and updating the spec, I think that were we to decide to go forward with it specifying the details we have figured out that allow interop woudl be a good thing, and I would not be comfortable having that gated on someone outside of the group 22:43:57 ... We have approached Julian in the past explicitly to participate. I think he hasn't had the time, I don't think it was a negative thing 22:44:08 eprodrom: for him and his business, the state of PuSH 0.4 fine, it works for what he needs 22:44:38 sandro: both what you said and the name, the right thing to do about the name is to ask the people who feel they have ownership of the old name, to see if they want us to call it PuSH 0.5 or name it a new thing 22:44:41 ... leave tha tup to them 22:45:04 tantek: I woudl word it more strongly - hey we like the work you've done, we've continue trying to specify details, we would like to take that work and publish it with the same name with a new version number 22:45:17 sandro: we don't want to hostilly claim next version numbers 22:45:35 tantek: I believe brad doesn't care... bret is happy to see anyone build on it... I think netiher one of them want to deal with talking to google's lawyers 22:46:01 ... Julian feels the strongest, he produced 0.4. If there's anyone we need good vibes from, make sure he knows and agrees with it happening, it would be Julian 22:51:06 eprodrom_ has joined #social 22:51:13 jasnell_ has joined #social 22:51:29 bengo_ has joined #social 22:51:32 shepazu_ has joined #social 22:51:32 eprodrom: Another objection... limited time, limited resources. I'm not going to edit this. I do'nt know who is. But we'd need to have someone step up and do it. We only have 7 months 22:51:32 tantek: or we publish as a note 22:51:33 sandro: still work there 22:51:33 tantek: less work 22:51:33 aaronpk: what's the value in that? 22:51:34 tantek: shows a consensus 22:51:34 sandro: coherance 22:51:35 cwebber2: plugging holes in an offical way.. 22:51:35 tantek: plugging the holes in a w3c note is better than plugging them in the iwc wiki 22:51:35 cwebber2: do you know anyone interested in taking this on? 22:51:36 aaronpk: Well, I am the most familiar with the spec.. 22:51:36 sandro: how about AFTER webmention and micropub go to CR 22:51:37 cwebber2: finish your vegetables... 22:51:37 aaronpk: if it's a note, there's no requirement for a test suite, which is a lot less wwork 22:51:38 tantek: theoretically possible to start a note after tpac and get it done 22:55:02 eprodrom: the main reason we had problems with ostatus is that the subscriber is unauthenticated so you can only publish things that are public 22:55:02 ... it does not make a good channel for publishing to small groups of people, friends, etc 22:55:03 tantek: limited utility 22:55:03 sandro: the subscriber is authenticated in that you confirm the subscription 22:55:04 aaronpk: the subscription is confirmed but there's no.. 22:55:04 sandro: no bearer token 22:55:04 ... we could add that? 22:55:05 aaronpk: not sure if that works all the way through 22:55:05 ... I haven't thought it through yet. Might work, not sure. 22:55:05 ... Reason because.. it might depend who is trusting the hub 22:55:06 sandro: the hub has to be the one enforcing the access control 22:55:06 ... Really doesn't work well to have a third party hub with access control 22:55:07 eprodrom: One technique is to have different feeds by group. Secret feeds or have a token in them that's hard to guess 22:55:08 ... THe feed of stuff that evan publishes that's available to sandro might be under a long complicated string 22:55:08 ... Shifts that effort onto the subscriber, it's hard to manage 22:55:08 ... It's especially hard to deal with combinations of things 22:55:09 ... That makes it kind of a tricky.. I wouldn't recommend it for anything that's not public 22:55:09 tantek: sounds like what you're saying is if you struck down that path of a PuSH based system you're gonna end up stuck with public-only functionality 22:55:09 ... Which is another reason to make it a note not rec-track 22:55:11 ... But helps at least capture the state of the art use of PuSH, for anyone who wants to know, here are implementations, if this is good enough for your use cases 22:55:23 cwebber2: would make sense to specificaly call out that it won't work if you need private communication 22:55:31 jasnell has joined #social 22:55:42 sandro: there are other ways to do it 22:56:05 Arnaud1 has joined #social 22:56:15 aaronpk: or you can do thin pings and authenticate on GET 22:56:26 cwebber2: people get pings for things they can't access? 22:57:56 eprodrom_ has left #social 22:57:58 pdurbin has joined #social 22:58:02 bengo has joined #social 22:58:07 cwebber2 has joined #social 22:58:21 aaronpk: no you don't ping them if they can't access it 22:58:21 eprodrom: if you have urls as identities you can say this subscriber endpoint is this person.. 22:58:21 ... You can't have third party subscriber endpoints 22:58:22 tantek: there's a lot of brainstomring about what's possible there, we don't know if it works yet 22:58:22 sandro: we can say 0.5 doesn't include that functionality, but wouldn't characterise it as a dead end 22:58:23 tantek: want to highlight the implementation experience. Ostatus went down that route then backed off 22:58:23 ... If there was an easy way to move it forward then maybe they would have 22:58:23 sandro: and they had different constraints 22:58:24 ... On the resource thing, is maybe a step here to put the word out that if if someone is willing to take on the editorship we would be interested, or do we want to wait until Aaron has time? 22:58:28 eprodrom: not that I"m not perfectly happy to waste aaron's time, when we do a new spec it does affect the rest of us 22:58:33 ... There is a collective amount of time we take in meetings 22:58:33 rrika has joined #social 22:58:58 raucao has joined #social 22:58:58 ben_thatmustbeme has joined #social 22:58:58 shepazu has joined #social 22:58:59 ... So next steps? 22:59:03 tsyesika has joined #social 22:59:14 ElijahLynn has joined #social 22:59:22 tantek has joined #social 22:59:39 bitbear has joined #social 23:00:00 bigbluehat has joined #social 23:00:01 dwhly has joined #social 23:04:12 PROPOSED: Request that Julien Genestoux transition PubSubHubbub from Community Group to editor's draft within Social WG 23:04:26 s/Social WG/Social Web WG 23:04:28 +1 23:04:30 +1 23:04:38 +1 23:04:39 +1 23:04:48 We'd like to to be Rec Track, but the time is very short 23:05:26 +1 23:05:38 RESOLVED: Request that Julien Genestoux transition PubSubHubbub from Community Group to editor's draft within Social WG 23:05:39 +1 23:07:31 5 minute break 23:09:52 http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/activitystreams-core/index.html 23:10:00 http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/activitystreams-vocabulary/index.html 23:16:14 TOPIC: TPAC 23:16:29 tantek: I'm definitely going to be at tpac the entire week 23:16:40 sandro: I can go if we're going to meet although I might go just for the plenary day 23:16:51 tantek: it would be really helpful the mroe people we get to that 23:16:58 ... the Sapporo one was distinctly different 23:17:32 ... We'll be able to gauge how people care about this 23:17:37 ... By then we'll have several CRs which will be different 23:17:53 ... Which building blocks you use depend on your use cases 23:17:55 sandro: sure 23:18:01 ... Wednesday aside, the WG meeting 23:18:12 tantek: my point is if you're going to be there Wednesday you will be there Thursdsay and Friday 23:18:15 sandro: if the rest of you are going, I will go 23:18:21 tantek: what's the threshold? 23:18:28 sandro: This is my threshold *points at room* 23:18:32 ... This is the minimum 23:18:38 ... We couldn't have done this meeting without the people here 23:19:09 ... [cwebber2, aaronpk, evan, tantek, rhiaro] 23:19:22 aaronpk: remote is possible, but significant timezone shift 23:19:42 tantek: 22 and 23 is reserved space for us 23:19:46 ... of september 23:19:55 ... So question is are you available, and would you be able to be there in person 23:19:59 aaronpk: I don't know how I'll get there in person 23:20:10 ... More likely to be able to be available if I don't have to travel 23:20:18 ... Travel would mean 5 days at least 23:20:25 ... Definitely yes to remote. Harder for me to go in person. 23:20:38 eprodrom: timewise I could go 23:21:34 ... Can't commit right now. Need to take a look. 23:21:39 ... Definitely commit to remote 23:22:06 rhiaro: I'll go if everyone else is going 23:23:25 sandro: get a cancellable hotel now, it's peak tourist season 23:23:35 eprodrom: on the other hand, Lisbon is awesome 23:24:24 cwebber2: if there is another place we can do it, I would prefer it. I'm commited to wrapping up my work and if that means I have to take a huge chunk out of my finances I will do it, but I would kind of prefer something less expensive 23:24:57 tantek: if the other meeting we had resovled on last time was November in Boston 23:25:03 rhiaro: I thought it was December in SF 23:25:06 sandro: I don't remember 23:25:43 eprodrom: So, timeframe. Everything currently on the table should be at CR or ready to go to CR. What would we do at a face to face? September 23:26:03 tantek: if we are going to do a revised CR that will be our last chance to do so, and resolve all outstanding issues 23:26:15 ... If we get dozens of implementaitons, we will get dozens of issues 23:26:29 ... If we're planning for success, we should expect that 23:26:37 sandro: at the very least we have to go through a bunch of issues 23:26:57 cwebber2: ...airbnb has affordable lodging.. I might be able to do this if we agreed on it righ tnow 23:28:14 ... I think it's really important we have this meeting. This time is really important. This location.. but maybe this is the only reasonable time we'll do it. So I'm for it. 23:28:34 sandro: one of the main reasons for this location is if we get people wednesday, and talking to people during tpac, to try to bring in new blood and share. Some may stop by WG meeting 23:28:50 tsyesika, can you make Lisbon in September? 23:28:57 eprodrom: Can we agree to make this decision in our next telecon? 23:29:43 tantek: another key reason is assuming we are doing some rechartering we would do it then 23:29:52 ... Ideally better if rechartering occurs before chater expires 23:30:24 eprodrom: Feels like we have enough of a consensus to go. Everyone can make it work either in person or remotely 23:31:53 ... Let's say we're doing it 23:33:40 tantek: Sign up for wednesday, thursday, friday 23:34:00 FIN 23:34:00 https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/ 23:34:34 RRSAgent please generate minutes 23:34:42 trackbot, end meeting 23:34:42 Zakim, list attendees 23:34:44 trackbot please generate minutes 23:34:50 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 23:34:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/07-social-minutes.html trackbot 23:34:51 Sigh. 23:34:51 RRSAgent, bye 23:34:51 I see no action items 23:34:51 Sorry, rhiaro, I don't understand 'trackbot please generate minutes'. Please refer to for help.