IRC log of social on 2016-09-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:02:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:02:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:03:00 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:03:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:03:02 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:03:02 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:03:02 [tantek]
17:03:03 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:03:03 [trackbot]
Date: 13 September 2016
17:03:03 [aaronpk]
17:03:04 [cwebber2]
17:03:04 [csarven]
17:03:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:03:10 [bengo]
17:03:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
I can scribe, though i'll not be sure who is speaking
17:03:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
not great audio
17:03:54 [cwebber2]
it's fine for me
17:04:02 [csarven]
17:04:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
17:04:38 [ben_thatmustbeme]
chair: tantek
17:04:45 [tantek]
17:04:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: first thing is approval of minutes of last week
17:05:09 [tantek]
PROPOSED approve minutes from last week
17:05:37 [cwebber2]
17:05:49 [cwebber2]
the JIT meeting log review tradition lives on
17:05:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:06:06 [aaronpk]
17:06:26 [tantek]
Zakim, who is here?
17:06:26 [Zakim]
Present: tantek, aaronpk, cwebber, csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, bengo
17:06:28 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, akuckartz, bengo, tantek, shepazu, KevinMarks, ElijahLynn, dwhly, Loqi, bitbear, pdurbin, bigbluehat, rrika, strugee, aaronpk, jet, cwebber2, wilkie,
17:06:28 [Zakim]
... csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, raucao, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot
17:06:33 [csarven]
17:06:44 [tantek]
RESOLVED: approve minutes from last week
17:06:59 [cwebber2]
tea packs!
17:07:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: as a reminder, we have no telcon next week, but we do have our F2F coming up
17:07:05 [tantek]
17:07:06 [Loqi]
Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)
17:07:10 [rhiaro]
17:07:19 [cwebber2]
oh hello rhiaro !
17:07:29 [wilkie]
17:07:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we also have the planary day at TPAC, in the past we had several sessions related to the WG, so expect wednesday to be a pretty busy day
17:08:02 [tantek]
17:08:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... and I believe TimBL has his talk on redecentralization on the morning of wednesday
17:08:32 [cwebber2]
17:08:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: tantek, have you proposed ?? on TPAC
17:08:40 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: for the tpac plenary session
17:08:45 [wilkie]
17:08:46 [tantek]
08:35-09:05: Research work on redecentralization of the Web - Tim Berners-Lee
17:09:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: back to discussion items
17:09:22 [cwebber2]
evan is remote I think
17:09:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... is anyone else going to be on other than the 6 of us?
17:09:37 [tantek]
17:09:39 [Loqi]
Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)
17:09:56 [tantek]
17:10:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: first item on the discussion items, pubsubhubbub, was to we need to go the FPWD?
17:10:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we have a ED, and there are no issues, which i'm going to attribute to a lack of attention, not that no issues exist
17:10:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: is he on the call?
17:11:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: no, i'm a little concerned that he hasn't been on the call last week or this week, he created the draft and hasn't been around since
17:11:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we may need to add a co-editor
17:11:38 [tantek]
17:11:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i don't think anyone on the call has any extra bandwidth
17:11:46 [aaronpk]
i am interested but do not have bandwidth for another spec!
17:11:53 [cwebber2]
17:11:55 [bengo]
17:11:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: just in case, i'll drop a link in to the chat
17:12:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... my personal (non-chair) opinion is that this draft does make several improvements as aaronpk suggested
17:12:40 [wilkie]
I'm looking forward to this draft getting moved along
17:12:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: it needs to make CR in a month, its not going to get to RED
17:12:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:13:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: thats true, but i think its worth getting a note either way
17:13:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: sometimes people outside w3c don't understand the difference between a rec and a note
17:13:38 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i would certainly like to see it published by the w3c in some aspect
17:13:47 [tantek]
17:13:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... next item is LDN by rhiaro and csarven
17:14:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... they are asking for people to review, and file substantiative issues before F2F
17:14:37 [tantek]
17:14:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... that stikes me as fast, but we've done other things fast in the WG
17:14:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... theres been a lot of dev in the last month, and only a few open issues, and there is even a test suite in progress
17:15:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
.... would like to commend the editors on that
17:16:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i think you've summarized things well, we've had feedback from implementors and potential implementors. We've been doing our own implementations, we have exit criteria, we are working on implementation report template. we just want attentive review by the group
17:16:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... this gives everyone a week and a half to review it before the TPAC
17:16:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: is the current ED ready for a new WD?
17:16:59 [akuckartz]
17:17:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: yes, there are a few editorial changes, but normative changes are frozen right now
17:17:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i don't know thats necessary for CR, but if we need to do that, we can
17:17:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: its actually very necessary, one of the things for CR is getting wide-review, and this is our newest draft
17:18:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: we have some of that in the issues
17:18:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: ?? i only see 1 new issue by someone that i don't recognize
17:18:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: they aren't all opened by people outside the group, but there has been some discussion by others outside the group
17:19:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i know that showing wide review can be the hardest part to show
17:19:39 [csarven]
17:19:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i'd strongly suggest anoter WD to help with that, do you have a changes section?
17:19:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: link in IRC
17:20:07 [rhiaro]
PROPOSED: Publish new WD of LDN based on current ED
17:20:20 [tantek]
+1 (chair hat off on that)
17:20:24 [rhiaro]
17:20:26 [cwebber2]
17:20:26 [csarven]
17:20:32 [akuckartz]
17:20:46 [aaronpk]
17:20:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i should add that i'm going to reach out to the horizontal review wgs
17:20:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:21:04 [wilkie]
17:21:08 [sandro]
17:21:09 [Loqi]
sandro: ben_thatmustbeme left you a message 20 minutes ago: meeding dial in info doesn't have a link anywhere, just going to an old link where it asks for meeting # just seems to keep loading the same page over and over after entereing the meeting number, doesn't even get to asking for a PW
17:21:20 [tantek]
RESOLVED: Publish new WD of LDN based on current ED
17:21:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: all +1s so lets declare this and move on
17:21:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: part of our job as chairs is to help the specs along, so i think this will help
17:22:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i've tried to set expectations for F2F, did that make sense, any additional questions about that? the additional questions are going to be about implementations, implementations interop, implementations that are not from the editors
17:23:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: we'll be able to demonstrate some at TPAC, hopefully beyond the editors
17:23:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do you have any at-risks?
17:23:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: we have 1 at-risk, we're hoping to add it to the namespace, but there is a w3c process to that
17:23:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: is that a specific features?
17:24:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: the namespace is set to ldp for the whole spec ???
17:24:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: thats not really what at-risk means
17:25:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: this is fine, its a small part of it that might change between a small value change
17:25:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: thats not my understanding, but we should check the spec
17:25:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
(arguement over what people "BELIEVE")
17:26:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: so any features at-risk?
17:26:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: there aren't any features at risk no
17:26:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
(rhiaro i missed all that, can you put that in the minutes?)
17:27:14 [rhiaro]
The ActivityStreams2 media type support is at riks
17:27:17 [rhiaro]
17:27:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: any other questions about LDN from the group?
17:28:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... there is a strong suggestion to file any substantiative issues, which i want to underscore
17:28:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: moving on to activitypub
17:28:42 [tantek]
17:29:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... it looks like chris and jessica. there is a request to please read the latest ED, and file any subs. issues before TPAC
17:29:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... would like to go to CR at TPAC
17:29:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: one question i'd like to ask, for several F2F meetings, we've discussed a federation implementation and wanted to know how long it would take to update the implementation to support the lastest spec
17:30:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i'm not directly involved in other than answering quesitons. I have my own implementation
17:30:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... there are internal transitions going in the group, but i don't know if anyone has an plans to do that right now
17:31:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i'm guessing mediagoblin was the version you demonstration before?
17:32:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: yes, previously it was mediagoblin using's spec, but now i plan to update mediagoblin to use AP
17:32:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i've stepped away a little from mediagoblin, i have been working on my own other implementation
17:33:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think one of the things was to get mediagoblin up to date before going to CR
17:33:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: whats left on pubstraight?
17:33:27 [tantek]
17:33:28 [rhiaro]
17:33:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i should be able to demonstrate it at TPAC
17:34:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: that kind of fresh prototype is good, and we look forward to that demo, but to set expectations, its a bit concerning that it isn't working with mediagoblin at the moment
17:34:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i don't remember any discussion about that exactly
17:35:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i believe there was a concern of having ANY implementations of it before going to CR
17:35:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i don't remember anything about needing implementations before going to CR
17:35:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:35:55 [tantek]
17:36:11 [aaronpk]
scribenick: aaronpk
17:36:11 [tantek]
ack ben_thatmustbeme
17:36:26 [aaronpk]
ben_thatmustbeme: i thought implementations from people outside of the editor was required for transitioning to CR
17:36:57 [aaronpk]
sandro: no implementation is required for transition *to* CR, but out of CR, it's very nice to have implementation experience. technically just the editor's is enough but it would be nice for other implementations as well
17:37:06 [rhiaro]
17:37:17 [aaronpk]
tantek: per w3c process today, there is no explicit requirement that there be implementations before CR
17:37:40 [aaronpk]
... what we and others have been doing is adopting a convention of there being multiple implementations including by those outside the group in order to shake out substantive issues
17:38:01 [aaronpk]
... i can cite other examples like CSS and webapps. the typical result is that when external implementations start it brings up issues that require additional CRs
17:38:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
I was looking at this
17:38:30 [aaronpk]
... so while it feels like you may have made progress by having a CR, you haven't actually made progress to exiting CR because you still have to close substatntive issues
17:38:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i see, i misread that
17:38:41 [aaronpk]
sandro: that's not a decision this group has made, we didn't hit that bar for AS2
17:38:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
it says "how it will be demonstrated"
17:38:51 [aaronpk]
... i don't think we have a list of implementations
17:39:05 [aaronpk]
tantek: we do, it's in the spec and we checked that as part of the transition call as well
17:39:49 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: there's no requirement to switch AS1 to AS2 implementations right? it feels very strange. i worked on having an implementation. but to be told that an existing thing must convert before exiting CR is strange. [cwebber is cutting out]
17:40:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:40:35 [sandro]
17:40:43 [tantek]
17:40:46 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
17:40:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we did discuess several times how we would figure out how to get implementation experience from as1 implementors
17:41:04 [tantek]
ack sandro
17:41:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i wanted to say that i have implemented parts of AP as well so we can work on getitng those working together before TPAC
17:41:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i still don't understand what you were saying about implementations of AS2, there is a link in the spec for implmentation reports and it goes to an empty web-page
17:42:02 [tantek]
17:42:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: maybe i was looking at the wrong link..... ahh i see the confusion. on our home page there is a link
17:42:19 [tantek]
17:42:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... multiple of those are outside the group, where as the spec links to something else which is empty
17:42:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i believe the entire time we were disucssing it in the group we were looking at the wiki page, not for implmeentation reports as we weren't at CR yet
17:43:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... if theres some way we can make that more discoverable from the spec or somewhere, i'll leave that to the editors
17:43:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: hopefully we'll get actual implmentation reports for it soon
17:43:46 [tantek]
17:43:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: yes, thats the best way
17:44:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: cwebber2 i believe you asked the question about existing implmentations and thats what led us down this thread
17:44:19 [tantek]
Zakim, who is here?
17:44:19 [Zakim]
Present: tantek, aaronpk, cwebber, csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, bengo, rhiaro, wilkie, akuckartz
17:44:22 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, akuckartz, bengo, tantek, shepazu, KevinMarks, ElijahLynn, dwhly, Loqi, bitbear, pdurbin, bigbluehat, rrika, strugee, aaronpk, jet, cwebber2, wilkie,
17:44:22 [Zakim]
... csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, raucao, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot
17:44:48 [cwebber2]
17:44:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i wish evan was here as i know we had that discussion with him. according to Zakim, bengo is on the call
17:44:54 [tantek]
ack cwebber2
17:44:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... bengo are you still there?
17:44:59 [tantek]
ack cwebber
17:45:07 [bengo]
I am on chat but not call
17:46:05 [bengo]
(couldn't access new webex page, reset w3 password, takes awhile to propogate)
17:46:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i'm just going to speak clearly how i feel about this. after the call last week, i have dropped everything on the floor to do what i needed to get this to CR. I never understood that updating an existing implementation to this before CR. I feel like i've done everything i possibly could do to get this to CR and i feel like i'm being blocked now. It doesn't sound like this is a standard process thing, it should have been made clear to
17:46:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
me much earlier
17:47:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
(cwebber2, is that a good minuting of that?)
17:48:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: as I understood it was that there was work on converting it activity pub was what you were working on. And if there is no implmenetation.....
17:48:18 [aaronpk]
17:48:28 [tantek]
17:48:30 [tantek]
ack aaronpk
17:48:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i'm talking about the UPDATING and existing implmenetation
17:48:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... that was not expressed clearly
17:49:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: as someone relatively outside of this spec, i don't remember which state (before CR after,etc) i remember seeing several times discussion of "its coming" and i thought there was work on AS2 in mediagoblin
17:51:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: we have been working on switching to as2 from as1, but our focus was on api. everything we have been doing has been informed by our work on
17:51:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i was not clear on the expectation that mediagoblin neede to implement activitypub before CR
17:52:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i'm not saying that its a blockade, its just surprising for those of us that had that understanding. there isn't a requirement for that in the process, but that was our understanding of how it was working.
17:53:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... just because there was that expetation and surprise, it does not mean that its blocking you
17:53:01 [tantek]
17:53:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: part of the reasons i implementation with pubstrate. I wanted to do it wihout too much mediagoblin influence
17:54:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... that way it was completely seperate, and it didn't have too much bias. does that make sense?
17:55:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: Yes, very much, and i commend you on that incitefulness on doing that. i think aaronpk has written and thrown away micropub implementations just like that. i think we should just look at what parts are implemented and what are not.
17:55:30 [tantek]
17:55:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i certainly see a reason to hold off on CR as i have not started a test suite, and i haven't set up implementation reports, etc
17:55:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: there isn't a requirement for a test suite, we just ask a plan on how a test suite will be done
17:56:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we do need your assessment of what features you would consider at risk
17:56:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i think the biggest challenge with AP is that the autorization section is going to be a little more vague, changing tokens, etc
17:57:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... there was an earlier ticket about moving to a new section that is intentionally vague
17:57:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... other things i'm pretty confident on, but i could do a more thorough review for sure
17:58:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: one option i would suggest, which is "if there are less than 2 implementations of a specific feature, than it should be at-risk"
17:58:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... if you have any feature that you don't both implement and preferrably interoperate with
17:59:12 [tantek]
17:59:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... you might want to talk with aaronpk, about how to write out the auth / tokens issue
17:59:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i really appreciate your working with us, there are a lot of first time editors in this group so its really great the work you have done
18:00:11 [cwebber2]
yes, a new WD would be good
18:00:16 [cwebber2]
there's a changelog
18:00:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: just as we asked for LDN, are there changes you want to republish as a WD
18:00:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... can we get a link to the changelog?
18:00:43 [cwebber2]
18:01:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we are going to go a few minutes over if there are no objections
18:01:09 [wilkie]
sounds good
18:01:24 [tantek]
PROPOSED: Publish new WD of Activitypub based on editor's draft
18:01:29 [rhiaro]
18:01:29 [cwebber2]
18:01:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:01:50 [akuckartz]
18:01:59 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #social
18:02:01 [wilkie]
18:02:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i see a bunch of changes here which is certainly worthy of publishing a new WD
18:02:04 [sandro]
18:02:21 [tantek]
RESOLVED: Publish new WD of Activitypub based on editor's draft
18:02:32 [cwebber2]
can do
18:02:42 [rhiaro]
that should be possible today
18:02:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: if there is some way you can get that out before TPAC, that would be great
18:03:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: anyone that want to provide any other update?
18:04:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i can give a quick update. on micropub i have 2 issues i'm waiting for commenter to reply on those, some may require some discussion. webmention hasn't had much changes, mostly editorial that i haven't had time to make yet
18:04:22 [aaronpk]
18:04:29 [Loqi]
[Aaron Parecki] Micropub
18:04:38 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i have enough changes on micropub that its worth people to review the changes since the last
18:04:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: can you add that to the required reading section for F2F?
18:05:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: how are we with test-suite completeness (to all our implementors)
18:05:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:05:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do we have a test for every feature?
18:05:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: not yet
18:05:59 [tantek]
18:06:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: for others going to CR, thats going to be the next thing is looking for, test coverage, and implementation reports
18:06:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think we should spend a minute talking about TPAC
18:07:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: how do we pitch a session on it. I think a title for open discussion would be "Decentralized Web"
18:07:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... some sort of framework for it would be good, if tim gave a keynote for it, it would be good
18:07:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i don't know the content of the talk, if you can find it out
18:08:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
s/decentralized web/decentralized social web
18:08:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think "decentralized web" is too generic and not a great title
18:09:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: certainly that would cover things outside our title
18:09:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:09:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think of this as maybe setting the stage for what the next WG would be, not the status of this group as much
18:09:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think that if we are able to show demos to those outside the WG, that would be good
18:09:59 [cwebber2]
I can probably do one
18:10:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: who would be up for giving a demo? aaronpkis always good for that right?
18:10:04 [rhiaro]
18:10:06 [KevinMarks]
Indeed, and decentralized web has an existing group
18:10:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: yeah i can do that
18:10:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think this group has been pretty good about having demos too
18:10:29 [csarven]
18:10:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i can demo too
18:10:44 [KevinMarks]
I can join in remote demos
18:10:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: as can i (via emoji)
18:10:49 [wilkie]
some sort of primitive text emoji
18:11:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i'll update the wiki page and say we will have demos and what people might want to do in the future
18:11:38 [akuckartz]
18:11:38 [Loqi]
emoji has 0 karma (1 in this channel)
18:11:48 [KevinMarks]
Do we need to parse emoticons as well as emoji now?
18:12:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think if we can demonstrate a positive example of evolving multiple approaches, which is something that is uncommon in the w3c, so if you can keep that in mind in your demos
18:12:24 [sandro]
"Decentralized Social Web, Discussions and Demo Session"
18:12:50 [tantek]
18:12:52 [KevinMarks]
18:12:56 [csarven]
I can do one that incorporates AS2, LDN, Web Annotations, Solid
18:13:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: if no other business
18:13:40 [tantek]
18:13:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: thank you everyone
18:13:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... see at least some of you next week
18:14:10 [aaronpk]
18:14:10 [Loqi]
ben_thatmustbeme has 168 karma (54 in this channel)
18:14:14 [wilkie]
I'll be in portland hopefully with the free time to be remote
18:14:21 [wilkie]
18:14:21 [Loqi]
ben_thatmustbeme has 169 karma (55 in this channel)
18:14:24 [wilkie]
18:14:24 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 71 karma
18:14:41 [tantek]
ben_thatmustbeme++ thank you for minuting
18:14:41 [Loqi]
slow down!
18:16:55 [tantek]
ben_thatmustbeme++ thank you for minuting
18:16:55 [Loqi]
ben_thatmustbeme has 170 karma (56 in this channel)
18:18:20 [tantek]
sandro: FYI, "Social Web" breakout session from TPAC 2015 (minutes, wiki, photo)
18:19:32 [sandro]
18:21:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
trackbot end meeting
18:21:27 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:21:27 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been tantek, aaronpk, cwebber, csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, bengo, rhiaro, wilkie, akuckartz
18:21:35 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:21:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:21:36 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:21:36 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items