IRC log of social on 2016-09-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:02:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:02:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/06-social-irc
17:02:07 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:02:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:02:09 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:02:09 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:02:10 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:02:10 [trackbot]
Date: 06 September 2016
17:02:14 [sandro]
present+
17:02:20 [aaronpk]
present+
17:02:41 [rhiaro]
present+
17:03:06 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
17:03:53 [rhiaro]
I'm muted because traffic background noise
17:03:55 [sandro]
rhiaro, we sound okay to each other, and can't hear you.
17:03:57 [rhiaro]
would be like whoooooosh for you all
17:04:04 [sandro]
ah.
17:04:24 [sandro]
eprodrom, no sign of a chair for today.....
17:04:45 [sandro]
eprodrom, note new dialin info https://www.w3.org/2015/10/social-wg-telecon
17:05:05 [eprodrom]
Oh right
17:05:06 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to: NEW DIALIN INFO https://www.w3.org/2015/10/social-wg-telecon
17:05:59 [csarven]
present+
17:06:26 [eprodrom]
present+
17:07:04 [sandro]
csarven, you don't seem to be on the call....
17:07:05 [cwebber2]
present+
17:07:16 [csarven]
sandro on with rhiaro
17:07:24 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
17:07:35 [aaronpk]
this must be out of sync then https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Future_Meetings
17:07:52 [sandro]
shepazu, https://www.w3.org/2015/10/social-wg-telecon
17:09:01 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
17:09:32 [sandro]
tantek, https://www.w3.org/2015/10/social-wg-telecon
17:09:38 [sandro]
(different telecon info)
17:09:49 [KevinMarks2]
Are we on? I hear typing
17:10:11 [KevinMarks2]
Present+
17:10:24 [tantek]
present+
17:10:28 [tantek]
Zakim, who is here?
17:10:28 [Zakim]
Present: sandro, aaronpk, rhiaro, csarven, eprodrom, cwebber, KevinMarks, tantek
17:10:30 [eprodrom]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-06
17:10:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see tantek, shepazu, eprodrom, Zakim, RRSAgent, jasnell_, KevinMarks2, aaronpk, Loqi, jet, csarven, cwebber2, ben_thatmust, bigbluehat, tsyesika, ElijahLynn, rhiaro,
17:10:30 [Zakim]
... pdurbin, raucao, wilkie, rrika, dwhly, bitbear, strugee, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot
17:11:02 [eprodrom]
tantek: I just got it together
17:12:18 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:12:29 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:12:29 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2016/09/06-social-irc#T17-12-29
17:12:42 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Approval of minutes 2016-08-23
17:12:56 [eprodrom]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-23-minutes
17:13:16 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-23-minutes as minutes for 23 Aug 2016 teleconference
17:13:43 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: please review, pretty productive meeting last time
17:13:48 [tantek]
+1 that was a good meeting yes
17:13:48 [eprodrom]
+1
17:13:53 [aaronpk]
+1
17:13:53 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
17:13:53 [sandro]
+1
17:13:57 [cwebber2]
+1
17:14:16 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: anyone still reviewing?
17:14:16 [tantek]
(despite some of the larger i18n issues being unresolved, both among our specs, and frankly, for W3C as a whole, i18n for JSON strings etc.)
17:14:18 [annbass]
annbass has joined #social
17:14:26 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-23-minutes as minutes for 23 Aug 2016 teleconference
17:14:39 [tantek]
(aside: I have raised these broader i18n/JSON issues with the AB from a process perspective, proposals without incubation etc.)
17:14:58 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Upcoming f2f at TPAC
17:15:01 [tantek]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-22#Registration
17:15:01 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: 2 weeks
17:15:01 [Loqi]
Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)
17:15:06 [cwebber2]
upcoming so fast omg!
17:15:07 [eprodrom]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-06
17:15:13 [rhiaro]
... If you have not yet ... is it still possible to register?
17:15:16 [rhiaro]
tantek: it is, just more expensive
17:15:43 [rhiaro]
... registration fee doubled on sept 2 and room blocks may have expired as well
17:15:47 [rhiaro]
sandro: there are defintiely other housing options
17:16:01 [annbass]
Oops ... Sorry; late regrets. Taking care of old friend in RI. No way to watch him & also be at meeting. See y'all in Lisbon!
17:16:02 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'm not going to be able to make it, I'll add my regrets
17:16:08 [rhiaro]
... Company conflict
17:16:18 [rhiaro]
... But will be remote
17:16:41 [rhiaro]
... I guess we have one more telecon before it happens
17:16:43 [rhiaro]
... Any questions?
17:16:51 [rhiaro]
sandro: We should do agenda planning, at least among chairs
17:17:52 [rhiaro]
... any further discussion about the f2f?
17:17:58 [rhiaro]
s/.../eprodrom
17:18:15 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Important for us to get an agenda up... make sure we fill that up
17:18:17 [rhiaro]
... Anything else?
17:18:33 [rhiaro]
tantek: I do have one concern which is that I think this might be our first f2f with no w3c members signed up to attend not counting chairs
17:18:38 [rhiaro]
... for actual wg participants
17:18:51 [rhiaro]
... Which is pretty unusual for a meeting at tpac
17:19:04 [rhiaro]
... If you're on the call and a w3c member we'd like to know why you haven't signed up
17:19:16 [rhiaro]
... A concern particularly wrt rechartering
17:20:12 [rhiaro]
sandro: In my mind that seems *noise* this group, that there is very little industry interest in what we're doing. Unfortunate and would be nice if we could figure out how to change it but has been the case for a long time now
17:20:26 [rhiaro]
tantek: we did have people at the different f2fs, this is the first time this has happened
17:20:36 [rhiaro]
sandro: it's on the trajectory, not surprising
17:21:01 [rhiaro]
tantek: just from a process perspective, makes it much harder to propose rechartering, we used w3c resources paid for by members, so makes it hard to justify continunig the wg when there are no members participating
17:21:08 [rhiaro]
sandro: we need 20 members to charter a new group
17:21:23 [rhiaro]
... 10 or 15 actually participating, typically. We're a long way from that
17:21:38 [rhiaro]
tantek: we might discuss at the f2f, we have chartering on the agenda
17:21:51 [rhiaro]
sandro: we talked about doing some sort of session at the unconference thing on wednesday
17:21:53 [rhiaro]
tantek: yes
17:22:04 [rhiaro]
sandro: maybe plan a little more about that, there's a wiki page, we can write a pitch for that now
17:22:15 [rhiaro]
tantek: encouraged to write up proposals for that
17:22:23 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: you mean this week, not right now?
17:22:29 [rhiaro]
tantek: any time between now and the end of tpac
17:22:32 [rhiaro]
sandro: over the next 2 weeks
17:23:09 [rhiaro]
tantek: when there is insufficient member interest the w3c typically recommends becoming a CG or IG which don't take up as much resources, but allows anyone who is interested to continue having some w3c related forum to discuss these things
17:23:16 [rhiaro]
... We'll look at all those options
17:23:26 [rhiaro]
... If anyone has any other proposals or brainstorms for possibilities we're open to hearing different proposals
17:23:36 [rhiaro]
... just want to keep that in people's minds as we get close to charter end
17:24:09 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: AS2 next steps
17:24:28 [tantek]
sorry for the charter sidetrack - I wanted to make sure people are thinking about it, because end of charter also affects how we decide to move forward or not with our documents in progress.
17:24:37 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'm the coeditor but I don't think there's much of a need for me to step aside as chair
17:24:43 [rhiaro]
... AS2 core and vocab went live as CR this morning
17:24:44 [cwebber2`]
cwebber2` has joined #social
17:24:46 [tantek]
Congrats!
17:24:47 [rhiaro]
... pretty exciting
17:24:49 [cwebber2`]
congrats!
17:24:59 [eprodrom]
https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5780
17:25:19 [rhiaro]
... We had agreed 2 weeks ago to push forward with the CR. Amy and sandro did a lot of work last week getting the document in shape for publication
17:25:23 [rhiaro]
sandro: entirely Amy
17:25:34 [cwebber2`]
rhiaro++
17:25:34 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 235 karma (125 in this channel)
17:25:41 [tantek]
rhiaro++ thank you!
17:25:42 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 236 karma (126 in this channel)
17:25:49 [tantek]
q+
17:25:49 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I guess my question is what happens next with AS2?
17:25:54 [eprodrom]
q?
17:26:18 [rhiaro]
sandro: basically we need to get out the word to anybody who might implement
17:26:23 [rhiaro]
... tell them now is the time to start implementing
17:26:26 [rhiaro]
... switch over from as1 to as2
17:26:31 [rhiaro]
... help them with their testing
17:26:34 [rhiaro]
... and gather results of testing
17:26:46 [eprodrom]
\o/
17:26:54 [rhiaro]
... then we can look at results, and hopefully go to rec. Or possibly do revisions which we don't really have time to do, but maybe some quick one
17:27:17 [rhiaro]
tantek: Sandro covered most of it. 3 basic things - outreach to developer community, now is the time to update implementations. this is ready fo rlive development and use
17:27:21 [rhiaro]
... Please file issues asap
17:27:33 [rhiaro]
... The second is substantitive issues are always likely to come up during CR so we need to address those
17:27:47 [rhiaro]
... They may require normative substantive changes. Usually a good sign, means that developers are digging into the spec and finding things that none of us found
17:27:58 [rhiaro]
... At som epoint we have to decide if we've handled all of those, and potentially do a second CR
17:28:26 [rhiaro]
... Third thing is that we need to complete the test suite, or declare that we have, which I don't think we have, but basically say everything in the spec we have at est for and we need implementations to do those tests and fill out an implementation report
17:28:45 [rhiaro]
... And then exiting CR is based on 3 things: 0 outstanding issues, have a test suite, and 2 or more implementations of everything in there
17:28:48 [rhiaro]
... THat goes for the other CRs as well
17:28:53 [rhiaro]
... This isn't anything special for as2
17:28:55 [aaronpk]
someone is causing a horrible echo
17:29:02 [rhiaro]
... Still a lot of work to do
17:29:13 [rhiaro]
... Where are we with th etest suite?
17:29:31 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: What we have for the test suite, two sides, one is the validator, which lets publishers check and see if what theyre publishing is valid as2
17:29:47 [rhiaro]
... The other half of that is the document suite that consumers can use to verify that they're able to consume legal activitystreams
17:30:13 [rhiaro]
... The consumer documents, you can run the consumer test suite through the validator and it all validates
17:30:26 [rhiaro]
... THe question is do we have for test coverage in the consumer documents for all the aspects of the spec
17:30:37 [rhiaro]
... that sounds like an excellent task for me to take on this week, to make sure that's the case
17:30:52 [rhiaro]
... that we don't have any features that are called out in the document that are not explicitly testable with documents
17:30:58 [rhiaro]
... I'm going to take that as an action for myself
17:31:36 [rhiaro]
tantek: when we reach the end of CR, we can evaluate the reports, if we have two or more implementations of every feature that's great, but if that's not the case we have multiple options at that point, including potentially dropping features
17:31:43 [rhiaro]
... Which definitely means we need to do another CR
17:31:58 [rhiaro]
... but that's a legitimate thing to say, we went to CR and nobody implemented it so we're going to drop it
17:32:07 [rhiaro]
... that's a perfectly fine thing to be able to say, keeps specs tight and lean
17:32:31 [rhiaro]
... It will merit discussion on the part of the working group, especially as our time dwindles, the chances of us exiting CR with this spec is greater if we drop features than wait for implementations, if it comes to that
17:32:49 [eprodrom]
q?
17:32:53 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
17:33:08 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: do we have more to talk about with as2?
17:33:42 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: micropub i18n issues
17:33:59 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: Quick question about this process
17:34:14 [rhiaro]
... we know that we published as CR before addressing the issues from the i18n group
17:34:42 [rhiaro]
... Some of those are now incorporated into the latest ED, some still need to be done, but I'm wondering what we need to do about this, are we planning on publishing a new CR with these changes? What's the timeline on that? What should we plan on?
17:34:58 [rhiaro]
... This question is probably for sandro
17:35:33 [rhiaro]
... We published before addressing i18n issues with the goal of doing that later. Should we do that sooner?
17:35:39 [rhiaro]
sandro: were we expecting those changes to be normative?
17:35:47 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: going to describe things like how to do unicode in strings and things like that
17:35:55 [rhiaro]
sandro: if I'm remembering correctly the hope was that that wouldn't be normative
17:36:01 [rhiaro]
... as soon as possible we should figure out what the changes are.
17:36:15 [rhiaro]
tantek: I understand they are normative because they impact what implemenations SHOULD or MUST do
17:36:19 [rhiaro]
... have to treat strings in th efollowing way
17:36:37 [rhiaro]
sandro: we should do them as soon as possible. If the question is whether to wait ... if we know exactly which changes, do we wait for other possible changes too before reissuing CR?
17:36:42 [rhiaro]
... What's the deadline?
17:37:05 [rhiaro]
tantek: any other issues?
17:37:23 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: the only one that might be normative is the clarification about the reference to indieauth which chris opened
17:37:42 [rhiaro]
... the way it was worded in the CR draft was that it's a normative reference, which we should have caught because we can't actually normatively reference it
17:38:02 [rhiaro]
... I already updated the ED to say that implementations MAY use indieauth to get an access token, don't know if tha'ts normative though
17:38:07 [rhiaro]
... I think it said SHOULD before
17:38:12 [rhiaro]
tantek: and thatw asn't raised in transition call?
17:38:14 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: yeah somehow we just missed it
17:38:36 [rhiaro]
... Oh no I'm wrong, that change made it into CR draft
17:38:37 [rhiaro]
... Never mind
17:38:42 [cwebber2`]
oh ok
17:38:44 [cwebber2`]
I can look at it
17:38:46 [rhiaro]
... But I am waiting for chris to thumbs up that
17:38:50 [aaronpk]
https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/47
17:38:57 [cwebber2`]
aaronpk, looking now
17:39:06 [aaronpk]
https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/#authorization
17:39:07 [Loqi]
[Aaron Parecki] Micropub
17:39:21 [rhiaro]
tantek: in response to do we wait for more issues. Micropub has been CR for 3 weeks or so. Have you received any new issues from implementors that are normative?
17:39:42 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: there's a handful of issues, cweiske took a look at it and is implelmenting a server. they look like clarifications. I don't think they're normative changes
17:39:45 [cwebber2`]
aaronpk, looks good, I took the liberty of closing it :)
17:39:50 [rhiaro]
... I defintiely need to incorporate those changes, but I don't think tehy're morative
17:39:54 [rhiaro]
s/morative/normative
17:39:57 [rhiaro]
tantek: refinements?
17:40:01 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: essentially yeah
17:40:17 [rhiaro]
... one example is when you're making a json request the spec should require the content type header
17:40:23 [rhiaro]
... you'd probably be doing that anyway but the spec iddn't say it
17:40:29 [rhiaro]
tantek: technically any changes like that are normative
17:40:37 [rhiaro]
... I'm not sure how that impacts CR exactly
17:40:40 [rhiaro]
... sandro?
17:40:57 [rhiaro]
... where it's a refinement, not actually a change. Narrowing the space of what implementations can do
17:41:12 [rhiaro]
sandro: the way ralph would interpret it is whether there's need for particular people that would affect. If it would affect implementers, are they okay iwth it
17:41:26 [rhiaro]
tantek: if there are implementations that used to be conformant that would no longer be
17:41:42 [rhiaro]
... can you take that as an action aaronpk? if any of those refinements would make existing implementations nonconformant?
17:41:49 [rhiaro]
... I think sandro is saying that if not that would not impact our timeline
17:42:17 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: Okay. I suspect theres going to be some that I can just incoroprate and close without worrying about existing implementations. I think some will affect implementations. My homework for this week will be to categorise thsee issues
17:42:27 [rhiaro]
tantek: that kind of refinement could be turned into a test. WHich would influence implementations
17:43:06 [rhiaro]
... And about AS2 as well, until we have a complete test suite for all the features, as you create tests you find that the spec wording is not entirely as you intended and so requires changes to its wording
17:43:38 [rhiaro]
... I know evan is already on it, encourage to evaluate the completeness of the test suite for as2. For micropub as well, the sooner you're able to produce a complete test suite the greater the confidence that we as a group are able to epxress that every feature has been expressed ina test so is testable so is written properly
17:43:51 [rhiaro]
... at least in CSS every time we've made a test suite we've found we've had to change the spec normatively
17:44:08 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: fair point
17:45:02 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I noticed that as2 took the i18n and incoropriated the unicode rather than adding a new property. That made it through the draft and is in CR now
17:45:10 [aaronpk]
https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues/37
17:45:13 [rhiaro]
... So I would like to essentially do the same thing with micropub to close issue 37
17:45:40 [rhiaro]
tantek: anyone object?
17:45:54 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: what you're saying aaronpk is that you want to do the bidi stuff in micropub the same as we did in as2?
17:45:57 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: Exactly?
17:46:37 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: add language to micropub to use bidi control characters and thus close issue #37
17:46:53 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: that works
17:46:59 [tantek]
(consistent with AS2)
17:47:08 [tantek]
(consistent with AS2 CR)
17:47:30 [tantek]
might be good to add that specifically to the resolution to indicate the motivation / deliberate consistency in the group
17:47:39 [eprodrom]
+1
17:47:49 [rhiaro]
sandro: why does html not work for this?
17:47:55 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: you'r enot always posting html in micropub
17:47:57 [rhiaro]
... could be plain text
17:48:02 [tantek]
+1 with that explicit note of motivation of consistency with AS2 CR
17:48:05 [rhiaro]
sandro: that are defined in the spec as being plain text?
17:48:07 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: yeah
17:48:20 [sandro]
+1
17:48:32 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
17:48:48 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: please vote. if you feel like you don't u nderstand at this point and want to keep discussing, that's okay
17:48:51 [rhiaro]
... don't feel rushed
17:48:57 [cwebber2`]
+1
17:49:06 [KevinMarks2]
+1
17:49:07 [aaronpk]
+1
17:49:30 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: add language to micropub to use bidi control characters and thus close issue #37
17:49:59 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: any more i18n issues on micropub we could discuss?
17:50:02 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: no that's it
17:50:14 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: anything more to discuss about micropub now?
17:50:14 [tantek]
aaronpk, when I look at https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues I see plenty of open issues
17:50:16 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: no
17:50:22 [tantek]
q+ re: CR consistency
17:50:30 [eprodrom]
q?
17:50:42 [aaronpk]
tantek, yes those are mostly feedback from cweiske that I mentioned earlier. I will be reviewing those and tagging any that need group feedback for next call
17:51:14 [rhiaro]
tantek: we should consider... if we are, and I think we should optimistically presume we have implementors implementing all of our CRs, we should have consistency with these kinds of details
17:51:28 [rhiaro]
... this change to micropub which brings it closer into alignment with AS2 it maybe worth issuing as a new CR for that reason
17:51:38 [rhiaro]
... so implementors reading them can see they're all designed to work in similar ways
17:51:52 [rhiaro]
... So even though there are other issues we know aaron is still processing, this might justify a new CR as soon as that edit is made
17:52:02 [rhiaro]
sandro: I don't know whether we need director approval to do a second CR, I don't know offhand
17:52:08 [rhiaro]
tantek: I don't think we do
17:52:26 [rhiaro]
... I think it extends the CR period by the minimum amount
17:52:45 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
17:52:45 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to discuss CR consistency
17:53:02 [rhiaro]
... I know it's a lot of work to produce a new version, but it may help implementors who are implementing multiple specs to get it right
17:53:29 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: aaronpk, what would that mean for you?
17:54:04 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I do believe that finishing the test suite will probably lead to more changes in the spec, so I don't knwo if it's worth planning on publishing two new CRs or if I should wait until the test suite to publish a new CR
17:54:08 [rhiaro]
tantek: do you have a rough estimate?
17:54:32 [rhiaro]
... if it's like a week or two then we can wait, but if it's like a month then it might be worth doing a CR now or in a week when you can incoroprate that issue
17:54:37 [rhiaro]
sandro: doing another CR is hard
17:54:51 [rhiaro]
... because it requires a new call for exclusison to the AC and a new director approval
17:54:58 [rhiaro]
... Maybe that can be done via email
17:55:01 [sandro]
https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-cr
17:55:01 [rhiaro]
tantek: that sounds right
17:55:12 [rhiaro]
... It doens't require an actual telecon, but does require director approval by email, that sounds right
17:55:30 [rhiaro]
... When we explain what the difference is, that we're doing a new CR based on resovling horizongal review issues, the director should be very supportive in my opinion
17:55:42 [rhiaro]
sandro: and as you say it extends the deadline at least ? weeks
17:55:58 [rhiaro]
tantek: which if we're not done with the test suite we will need to do anyway
17:56:12 [rhiaro]
... we're not going to be able to exit cr anyway until we're done with the test suite
17:56:14 [tantek]
s/?/4
17:56:14 [rhiaro]
s/?/4
17:56:41 [rhiaro]
... so if you think aaronpk you can finish the test suite quickly
17:56:49 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I suspect ti will be after the week after tpac
17:56:58 [rhiaro]
tantek: that seems sensible
17:57:10 [rhiaro]
... you'll also get chance to meet with horizontal reviewers at tpac
17:57:21 [rhiaro]
... another good reason to have CRs as close to what they have asked for as possible
17:57:37 [rhiaro]
... You said it was hard sandro but I think we're able to handle that
17:57:39 [rhiaro]
sandro: yeah..
17:57:53 [rhiaro]
tantek: and being responsive to horizontal review shows good faith behaviour on the hpart of the wg
17:58:01 [rhiaro]
sandro: I'm afraid we're running very low on a lot of resources
17:58:16 [rhiaro]
... I think we can focus on implementation reports from here
17:58:33 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: any editors have updates to give?
17:58:48 [cwebber2]
q+ short :P
17:58:52 [tantek]
up to you aaronpk, if you think you can produce a CR draft for next week with i18n issues resolve and want to, go ahead
17:58:52 [cwebber2]
wait
17:58:55 [cwebber2]
yes
17:58:59 [aaronpk]
k
17:59:00 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber2
17:59:31 [rhiaro]
cwebber: No update on spec from last time, but implementation stuff I'm pressing very hard on and have most of the client to server stuff in place, and a separate client being developed
17:59:44 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Closing, thanks everyone
17:59:52 [rhiaro]
... back on regular schedule, we'll have a meeting next tuesday, tantek chairing
18:00:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
See you all then
18:00:08 [tantek]
rhiaro++ for minuting!
18:00:11 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
18:00:11 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:00:11 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been sandro, aaronpk, rhiaro, csarven, eprodrom, cwebber, KevinMarks, tantek
18:00:19 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:00:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/06-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:00:20 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:00:20 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items