16:57:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
16:57:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/04-social-irc
16:57:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:57:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
16:57:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:57:35 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
16:57:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:57:36 <trackbot> Date: 04 October 2016
16:57:54 <aaronpk> good morning
16:58:02 <rhiaro> present+
16:58:07 <rhiaro> hola aaronpk
16:58:28 <bengo> present+ on irc but not call (spotty wifi)
16:58:51 <sandro> present+
16:58:59 <aaronpk> present+
16:59:14 <julien> julien has joined #social
17:00:08 <julien> hey. do we have the call today?
17:00:19 <sandro> Yes
17:00:45 <cwebber2> hi, dialing in
17:01:08 <julien> what's the dial in info?
17:01:14 <tantek> good morning #social!
17:01:37 <aaronpk> i'll PM you julien
17:01:42 <tantek> present+
17:01:50 <annbass> present+
17:01:51 <tantek> Zakim, who is here?
17:01:51 <Zakim> Present: rhiaro, on, irc, but, not, call, (spotty, wifi), sandro, aaronpk, tantek, annbass
17:01:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, annbass, bengo, eprodrom, tantek, shepazu, timbl, AdamB, strugee, cwebber2, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, hadleybeeman, jet, aaronpk, Loqi,
17:01:54 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat, ElijahLynn, dwhly, bitbear, rrika, csarven, rhiaro, raucao, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot
17:02:07 <aaronpk> oh good, I see we have "spotty wifi" on the call
17:02:34 <tantek> present- on
17:02:43 <tantek> Zakim, who is here?
17:02:43 <Zakim> Present: rhiaro, irc, but, not, call, (spotty, wifi), sandro, aaronpk, tantek, annbass
17:02:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, annbass, bengo, eprodrom, tantek, shepazu, timbl, AdamB, strugee, cwebber2, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, hadleybeeman, jet, aaronpk, Loqi,
17:02:46 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat, ElijahLynn, dwhly, bitbear, rrika, csarven, rhiaro, raucao, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot
17:02:48 <bengo> k
17:02:49 <tantek> present- irc
17:02:50 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+
17:02:51 <tantek> present- but
17:02:55 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has left #social
17:02:56 <tantek> present- not
17:03:00 <tantek> present- call
17:03:05 <ben_thatmustbeme> preset-  call (spotty wifi)
17:03:06 <tantek> present- (spotty
17:03:08 <cwebber2> present+
17:03:12 <tantek> present- wifi)
17:03:19 <tantek> zakim, who is here?
17:03:19 <Zakim> Present: rhiaro, sandro, aaronpk, tantek, annbass, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber
17:03:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, annbass, bengo, eprodrom, tantek, shepazu, timbl, AdamB, strugee, cwebber2, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, bigbluehat,
17:03:21 <Zakim> ... ElijahLynn, dwhly, bitbear, rrika, csarven, rhiaro, raucao, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot
17:03:24 <aaronpk> tantek++
17:03:24 <Loqi> tantek has 306 karma (47 in this channel)
17:03:24 <eprodrom> hi all
17:03:39 <annbass> yo eprodom
17:03:43 <sandro> eprodrom, you on phone?
17:03:50 <cwebber2> I should have put AP on the agenda
17:03:55 <cwebber2> anyone mind if I toss it on now?
17:04:03 <tantek> cwebber2: still time to do so - add to end of discussion items
17:04:16 <csarven> present+
17:04:21 <annbass> hi julien
17:04:28 <julien> present+
17:04:30 <eprodrom> I am now
17:04:31 <AdamB> present+
17:04:31 <eprodrom> present+
17:05:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> do we have a scribe?
17:05:16 <eprodrom> PROPOSAL approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-13-minutes as minutes for 9/13/2016 meeting
17:05:18 <rhiaro> I normally go through and clean the f2f minutes up but I haven't had chance to do that yet
17:05:36 <rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
17:05:39 <tantek> rhiaro - shall we postpone f2f minute approval to next week then?
17:05:40 <wilkie> present+
17:06:15 <eprodrom> +1
17:06:24 <cwebber2> +1 with endorsement for rhiaro to do any cleanup she feels like if she wants to still
17:06:35 <aaronpk> +1
17:06:36 <rhiaro> eprodrom: please review Sep 13 minutes
17:06:51 <rhiaro> <rhiaro> +1
17:06:59 <annbass> +1
17:07:02 <tantek> +1
17:07:07 <wilkie> +1
17:07:12 <csarven> +1
17:07:32 <eprodrom> RESOLVED approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-13-minutes as minutes for 9/13/2016 meeting
17:08:06 <rhiaro> eprodrom: For the f2f minutes it sounds like based on irc discussion that they haven't been cleaned up yet and tantek suggested that we postpone til next week
17:08:09 <rhiaro> ... any objections to that?
17:08:21 <rhiaro> ... Okay, postponed to next week
17:08:35 <eprodrom> TOPIC  November face-to-face details
17:08:37 <rhiaro> TOPIC: Next f2f
17:08:49 <rhiaro> ... Planning on doing our last f2f in November
17:08:58 <rhiaro> ... Sandro?
17:09:12 <rhiaro> sandro: at the last f2f we worked through dates and possibilities and came to Nov 17 and 18 in Boston or SF
17:09:26 <rhiaro> ... I mentioned that on email and people expressed preferences to Boston
17:09:37 <rhiaro> ... tantek and I talked this over, so unless someone has a last mintue problem with boston vs SF, that's what we'll do
17:09:42 <rhiaro> ... Anyone?
17:09:48 <rhiaro> ... eprodrom, you're the one haven't heard from
17:10:05 <rhiaro> eprodrom: isn't that thanksgiving?
17:10:08 <rhiaro> tantek: week before
17:10:09 <akuckartz> akuckartz has joined #social
17:10:14 <rhiaro> aaronpk: thanksgiving is the 24th
17:10:21 <rhiaro> eprodrom: then no problems, let's do it
17:10:27 <rhiaro> tantek: get +1s?
17:10:49 <annbass> +1 .. altho not sure I'll make it
17:10:53 <eprodrom> PROPOSED f2f meeting on 17 and 18 Nov 2016 in Boston
17:10:54 <sandro> +1 I'll be there (hosting)
17:11:01 <eprodrom> +1 will attend
17:11:02 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1 will be there in person
17:11:03 <cwebber2> +1 (and I intend to attend)
17:11:03 <rhiaro> sandro: on your +1s say whether you expect to attend
17:11:07 <aaronpk> +1 will attend
17:11:09 <tantek> +1 will attend
17:11:09 <akuckartz> present+
17:11:10 <wilkie> +1 will attend
17:11:13 <rhiaro> <rhiaro> +1 will attend pending funding
17:11:25 <cwebber2> just got booted from call
17:11:27 <cwebber2> re-calling
17:11:44 <eprodrom> RESOLVED f2f meeting on 17 and 18 Nov 2016 in Boston
17:12:14 <wilkie> rhiaro: boston is easy!
17:12:17 <rhiaro> eprodrom: any other discussion we need to have about this?
17:12:23 <annbass> thanks tantek
17:12:27 <rhiaro> tantek: I can create the boilerplate wikipage and sandro can update as host
17:12:34 <cwebber2> back
17:12:34 <rhiaro> sandro: It'll be in the room called Kiva at MIT
17:12:53 <ben_thatmustbeme> When reading the minutes, i'm assuming its okay to have a 4th F2F in a year?
17:12:55 <sandro> Meeting will be in G449 (Patil/Kiva room)
17:13:24 <cwebber2> it would be nicer if the group had an extension and we could meet in early 2017 ;)
17:14:12 <rhiaro> tantek: the charter says we should have 3 per year, so if anyone wants to object they can
17:14:19 <rhiaro> ... but we haven't had any objections so far
17:14:31 <rhiaro> ... but if anyone does feel strongly we should not meet, please speak up, it's your right per the charter
17:15:12 <eprodrom> TOPIC Micropub update
17:15:33 <rhiaro> aaronpk: just a quick update. I did the security and privacy review for it and that's not incorporated into the latest ED
17:15:37 <aaronpk> https://micropub.net/draft/#security-and-privacy-review
17:15:40 <Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Micropub
17:15:47 <rhiaro> ... Would love some feedback on that
17:16:16 <rhiaro> ... One thing from that is it seems to be written assuuming the thing being reivewed is written as part of the browser, so some of the questions were challenging in that context
17:16:24 <rhiaro> ... The other micropub update is that I've been making progress on the test suite
17:16:28 <rhiaro> ... micropub.rocks is up and running now
17:16:30 <tantek> q+ re: security reviews browser vs what we spec
17:16:57 <rhiaro> ... It has tests for creating posts in form encoded and json, and also updating
17:17:03 <rhiaro> ... just working through tests based on the issues
17:17:13 <aaronpk> https://micropub.rocks/
17:17:21 <rhiaro> ... So if you do have a micropub implementation please feel free to take a look at that
17:17:37 <rhiaro> ... The other thing point out is that it stores the test results itself so creating the implementation report summary will be easier becasue allt he data will be in that website already
17:17:41 <rhiaro> eprodrom: that's excellent, what a good idea
17:17:44 <rhiaro> ... how do you format it?
17:17:48 <rhiaro> ... is it a copy and paste kind ofthing?
17:17:59 <rhiaro> aaronpk: It's just stored, each test has a nubmer so I can store whether it passed or failed each test
17:18:06 <rhiaro> ... So I'll be able to generate that in whatever format we need
17:18:20 <rhiaro> eprodrom: any more on micropub?
17:18:23 <tantek> q?
17:18:25 <eprodrom> q?
17:18:29 <eprodrom> ack tantek
17:18:29 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss security reviews browser vs what we spec
17:18:51 <rhiaro> tantek: the thing about the security and privacy questionnaire mostly sounding like it's been written from a browser perspective is accurate
17:18:57 <rhiaro> ... that was the driving force behind writing it up
17:19:10 <rhiaro> ... getting editors aware of security and privacy implications implementing w3c specs in the browser
17:19:16 <rhiaro> ... but we shoould be interpreting those questions liberally
17:19:27 <rhiaro> ... and think about the intent, what are they getting at in terms of vulnerabilities
17:19:46 <rhiaro> ... so even if it seems like it's browser specific, broaden the scope of that in your mind and consider what is the equivalent from the server perspective as well
17:20:01 <rhiaro> ... concerns about cookies, or implementations being stored on the browser, eg. for private browsing mode
17:20:21 <rhiaro> ... the equivalent for a server would be the server maintaning user data or stats or cookies or logs which are actually important to call out
17:20:26 <rhiaro> ... in some juristictions there are rules about that
17:20:31 <rhiaro> ... eg. europe, the ability to be forgotten by the server
17:20:44 <rhiaro> ... anything that sounds browser specific, think about what it measn for the server to have to do the equivalent
17:21:18 <rhiaro> ... I'll take a look at those answers and in places where some feedback will help with the privacy and security questionnaire I'll also push some of thsoe changes to the questions upstream and update the questionnaire itself
17:21:24 <rhiaro> ... It'll help to have examples in our specs where we're doing that
17:22:03 <eprodrom> TOPIC Webmention update
17:22:10 <eprodrom> I hear it too
17:22:23 <aaronpk> https://webmention.net/draft/#security-and-privacy-review
17:22:25 <Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Webmention
17:22:27 <rhiaro> aaronpk: Did the security and privacy questionnaire for webmention as well
17:22:28 <AdamB> i hear it a little, not too much
17:22:36 <rhiaro> ... would love feedback on results
17:22:46 <aaronpk> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kH385v6skHbMre_bmz1Vyma8BDemt7WHlM0ZQwVXBOo/edit?usp=sharing
17:22:52 <rhiaro> ... the other thing with webmention is I took all of the implementation reports that are submitted and complied into a spreadsheet
17:22:59 <rhiaro> ... there are 8 senders and 7 receivers recorded
17:23:12 <rhiaro> ... what I did is marked for each test whether the person had reported it passing
17:23:18 <rhiaro> ... and column B is the percent of implementatons that passed each test
17:23:27 <rhiaro> ... With senders they're all essentially 75% and higher implemented.
17:23:38 <rhiaro> ... With receivers, everything except 2 features have more than one implementation, marked in yellow
17:23:39 <sandro> +1 Bravo aaronpk Very Nice
17:23:46 <eprodrom> Thumbs up
17:23:47 <rhiaro> ... they're the only two that are red flags for those features
17:23:58 <rhiaro> ... very happy to see there are already 2+ implementations of everything in the sepc
17:24:07 <eprodrom> q?
17:24:39 <rhiaro> eprodrom: impressive
17:24:43 <rhiaro> ... private webmention?
17:24:49 <rhiaro> aaronpk: after the f2f we had an indiewebcamp in brighton
17:25:03 <rhiaro> ... a few of us brainstormed extension to webmention that would allow it to work for URLs that require access control
17:25:08 <rhiaro> ... My hackday project was to write it up as a sepc
17:25:09 <aaronpk> https://indieweb.org/Private-Webmention
17:25:11 <rhiaro> s/sepc/spec
17:25:16 <rhiaro> ... this is written as an extension
17:25:28 <rhiaro> ... a couple of extra things before the webmentino processing, then it hands off to regular webmention processing
17:25:35 <rhiaro> ... excited about this, and we already have implementations started
17:25:42 <rhiaro> ... three combinations of sending and receiving right now
17:25:57 <rhiaro> ... happy to be able to say that there will be an answer to how webmention works with private content
17:26:24 <rhiaro> ... once it has more implementations we'll add it to the list of extensions on the spec
17:26:42 <rhiaro> eprodrom: So I've made a post, you've sent me a webmention and I'll show the response... is the intention that the response would not be shown on my site?
17:27:08 <rhiaro> aaronpk: that's typically how webmentions are used, but similar to how the webmention spec doesn't actually say you have to show a comment, it leaves that out, and the goal of this spec is getting the verification to work
17:27:13 <rhiaro> ... a separate issue is what people do with that
17:27:23 <rhiaro> ... my intent is not to specify how or when peopel should show comments
17:27:31 <rhiaro> ... that will depend on why the post is private and what audience it's for
17:27:40 <rhiaro> ... I expect now that implementations would not show them as comments except maye for the owner of the site
17:27:48 <rhiaro> ... but I want to leave that open for more intelligent display of received comments
17:27:58 <rhiaro> ... the whole goal o fthis spec was to get the verification to work with authenticated content
17:28:06 <rhiaro> eprodrom: specifying the intention early might be good to avoid mistakes
17:28:29 <rhiaro> ... if I were to send you a webmention form my site and my intention is that it would have the same access control as I have on my site
17:28:43 <rhiaro> ... if I haven't made it public to the whole world, you wouldn't make it public to the whole world either. If you did do that it would be contrary to my intention
17:29:01 <rhiaro> ... What scenario would there be where I have it private on my site but you can make it public on yours?
17:29:10 <rhiaro> aaronpk: I would expect it to have the same access control as the source
17:29:26 <rhiaro> ... I don't want to get into ACL stuff with this, but I would epxect that anyone in the group who could see the original could see the comment on the other site as well
17:29:39 <rhiaro> eprodrom: it seems like being more conservative in this case might be better, but it's obviously up to you how people use it
17:29:42 <rhiaro> ... but sounds very interesting
17:29:44 <eprodrom> q?
17:29:57 <rhiaro> ... Anything else?
17:30:08 <cwebber2> nope
17:30:10 <cwebber2> refresh!
17:30:28 <eprodrom> TOPIC: ActivityPub update
17:30:53 <cwebber2> http://w3c.github.io/activitypub/
17:30:57 <rhiaro> cwebber2: There have been a number of changes to AP and when we spoke at the f2f we talked about publishing a new WD
17:31:04 <rhiaro> ... There's a new ED with a changelog of all the changes
17:31:24 <rhiaro> ... Probably the biggest change is adding the soure field stuff as discussed at the f2f, and adding that and the binary data mechanism as at risk
17:31:28 <rhiaro> ... Other than that mostly editorial
17:31:36 <rhiaro> ... but I would like to propose releasing a new WD
17:31:44 <tantek> link to change log?
17:31:54 <cwebber2> http://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-from-13-september-2016-to-present-version
17:31:56 <rhiaro> PROPOSAL: Publish new WD of ActivityPub
17:32:26 <cwebber2> +1
17:32:40 <eprodrom> +1
17:32:43 <sandro> +1
17:32:44 <rhiaro> <rhiaro> +1
17:32:45 <annbass> +1
17:32:45 <akuckartz> +1
17:32:49 <wilkie> +1
17:32:57 <rhiaro> sandro: the plan is still to vote on CR a week from now?
17:33:01 <rhiaro> cwebber2: yes that's the plan
17:33:02 <bengo> +1
17:33:12 <aaronpk> +1
17:33:26 <rhiaro> tantek: the changes look really good
17:33:51 <rhiaro> ... my outstanding question regarding voting for CR next week is I did see a bunch of the i18n folks filing issues, do you expect to have responses to those by next week?
17:33:56 <tantek> +1 publish new WD!
17:34:01 <rhiaro> cwebber2: I've already closed 1, and the other 2 I know what's happening, so I'm pretty confident
17:34:12 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: Publish new WD of ActivityPub
17:34:52 <rhiaro> cwebber2: Bringing AP to CR and the steps I'm taking towards that
17:35:02 <rhiaro> ... I am working to make sure that everythign is in the right state for ??
17:35:12 <rhiaro> ... security and privacy section was added, planning on adding to the CR wiki page
17:35:17 <rhiaro> ... I'm not sure if this should be on the document itself, the testing plan
17:35:21 <rhiaro> ... I do have a general sense of what that's gonna be
17:35:37 <rhiaro> ... I have also sent the requests for horizontal review, and we've already got responses from i18 and a11y (off list)
17:35:43 <rhiaro> ... I'm not sure when it will be on list
17:35:45 <rhiaro> ... they're fine with it
17:35:49 <rhiaro> ... that's good news
17:36:09 <rhiaro> ... I've sent out stuff for wide review and I've been starting to get feedback, and going to make a mediagoblin blog post to day and asking our donors for additional review
17:36:15 <rhiaro> ... we've already got a good amount, not all on the wiki page yet
17:36:16 <cwebber2> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/ActivityPub_wide_review
17:36:28 <rhiaro> ... will be working on that today, and collapsing tha tpage into the CR page on the wiki
17:36:42 <rhiaro> ... I have been getting feedback, the majority was people concerned about the cryptographic integrity of the document
17:37:01 <rhiaro> ... so this might be partly because of the people who are paying most attention to AP are in the federated social web space and are concerned about decentralisation from that kind of perspective
17:37:18 <rhiaro> ... there were a couple of peopel from diaspora who had weighed in before, that were about how diaspora has done sigantures and asking that we do the same
17:37:28 <rhiaro> ... I don't think signatures are going to make it in, but I've left text on how that might be done
17:37:38 <rhiaro> ... Cleared it up so the method of verification is left open
17:37:48 <rhiaro> ... That was surprising so far, but they seem very interested in that
17:37:56 <rhiaro> ... And some other feedback I'll be getting to over the week
17:37:58 <tantek> q+ to ask if signatures could be done as an extension? and does this relate to private webmentions at all? should it?
17:38:03 <rhiaro> ... I'm pretty confident about us being able to hit CR  next week
17:38:16 <eprodrom> q?
17:38:19 <rhiaro> eprodrom: good news. Anything more?
17:38:30 <cwebber2> eprodrom, tantek is on the queue
17:38:39 <eprodrom> ack tantek
17:38:39 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask if signatures could be done as an extension? and does this relate to private webmentions at all? should it?
17:39:03 <rhiaro> tantek: I tried to follow some of those conversatiosn about signatures, I think you're doing the right hting Chris, but is that something we could write up or add later as an extension?
17:39:17 <rhiaro> ... That if servers decided to adopt that extension they'd have some way of discovering that they are talking to someone who supports signatures?
17:39:26 <rhiaro> ... And potentially satisfy the commenter concerns in that way?
17:39:49 <rhiaro> ... Part 2 of this question is from hearing aaron's discussion about private webmention, is there / shoulld there be relation?
17:39:53 <rhiaro> ... or is that only high level?
17:40:01 <rhiaro> ... you two can figure that out
17:40:09 <rhiaro> cwebber2: Yes I think it can be done as an extension
17:40:14 <rhiaro> ... I'm interested in continuing that conversation
17:40:19 <rhiaro> ... Especially after the group winds down
17:40:24 <rhiaro> ... We've all elft this space open in our specs
17:40:31 <rhiaro> ... to leave verification somewhat ambiguous with some proposed methods for doing so
17:40:48 <rhiaro> ... the most basic being checking the source content. But having left it open we can define that as an extension and make sure it's compatible going into the future
17:40:57 <rhiaro> ... So yes I'm interested in collaborating with aaron and anyone who is interested
17:41:04 <rhiaro> ... and whether or not it applies to the private messaging stuff
17:41:19 <annbass> q+ to say something about next steps (when this topic is done)
17:41:34 <rhiaro> ... it definitely applies there, and as a means of verification, another place where it was brought up is that some of you might remmeber that amy and I put a mechanism for forwarding messages into the AP spec so you wouldn't have the problem that pumpio currently has
17:41:46 <rhiaro> ... where if you send a message to someone' sfollowers and someone replies and people up the chain don't see it
17:41:46 <eprodrom> I got kicked off the call
17:41:48 <eprodrom> One moment
17:41:58 <rhiaro> ... so weh ave a forwarding mechanism but without a clear way of identifying that a message really came from that person
17:42:04 <rhiaro> ... the disapora people emphasised that
17:42:09 <rhiaro> ... it's an interesting point, they really rely on that
17:42:22 <rhiaro> ... there are multiple reasons to want that, but we don't need to solve that in the time of this group, we can work on it going forward
17:42:47 <rhiaro> tantek: we are talking about the winding down of the wg, but after the f2f we did agree to start a CG and this is a perfect candidate to be discussed
17:42:51 <rhiaro> ... and worked on in the context of that CG
17:42:54 <rhiaro> ... that's the right thing to do
17:43:21 <rhiaro> ... we figured out a bunch of things, and we're taking them to CR, and anything else is a bit more experimental and that's the perfect use of a CG is to take this ideas and start to incubate them there
17:43:27 <rhiaro> ... without a particular timeline or deadline
17:43:29 <rhiaro> ... which is nice
17:43:43 <rhiaro> ... and if at some point in the future we have enough critical mass tow rite up normatively we can go through another wg process
17:43:48 <rhiaro> ... but I don't want to get ahead of myself
17:43:57 <rhiaro> ... Just for folks who weren't at the f2f, we did decide to create a CG
17:44:03 <rhiaro> ... and transition any new work into that CG
17:44:12 <rhiaro> ... we agreed not to start any new drafts at the f2f
17:44:17 <rhiaro> ... so we do have a continuity story, just not in this WG
17:44:55 <eprodrom> TOPIC Activity Streams
17:45:08 <rhiaro> eprodrom: i had a task to take on some of the outstanding bugs on the validator
17:45:11 <rhiaro> ... I'll be doing that this week
17:45:43 <cwebber2> oh
17:45:44 <cwebber2> q+
17:45:47 <rhiaro> ... And that takes us to the end. Anything else?
17:45:51 <eprodrom> ack annbass
17:45:51 <Zakim> annbass, you wanted to say something about next steps (when this topic is done)
17:46:04 <rhiaro> annbass: We agreed at the f2f to start a CG to continue the follow on
17:46:13 <julien> Maybe PubSubHubbub? (not that I have nything special to say though...)
17:46:27 <rhiaro> ... I've been chatting with akuckartz who is cochair of the federated socweb CG (with evan) and andreas questions if we should close that or repurpose that
17:46:43 <cwebber2> notably I also surprisingly bumped into https://www.w3.org/community/activitypub/ today :)
17:47:02 <rhiaro> ... we can continue to conversation on the followon by email
17:47:21 <rhiaro> ... andreas says there are people in that CG who are interested and might want to re-engage
17:47:28 <tantek> q?
17:47:31 <ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2, i brought that up when we first changed the name, no one responded
17:47:32 <eprodrom> q?
17:47:34 <tantek> q+
17:47:49 <cwebber2> my response was not to this
17:47:52 <cwebber2> so do tantek first
17:47:57 <eprodrom> ack cwebber2
17:48:12 <cwebber2> q?
17:49:12 <rhiaro> tantek: I think as far as we discussed at thef2f, part of the intent of creating the social web incuabor group was to... we discussed closing down a number of CGs and we'd include their work as part of the new gropu... for example the PuSH CG ... so we can declare that CG succeeded in incubating... part of the point was to provide a continuity of like here is a group that's been active (the WG) and the future of that is to incubate thingse beyond what we've
17:49:12 <rhiaro> built recommendations for
17:49:23 <rhiaro> ... and I feel like we've built 'brand recognition' with the good work the WG has done
17:49:31 <rhiaro> ... and to keep that and indicate that there's continuity here
17:49:54 <annbass> q+
17:50:02 <rhiaro> ... so unless andreas has any objectsion, I think that's a good reason to start the new CG and also it'll be a good announcement that we're starting a new group with the following scope
17:50:08 <akuckartz> q+
17:50:09 <rhiaro> ... what we've done before, plus the other CGs
17:50:34 <rhiaro> ... I think it woulld be better to bring those under one umbrella, make a new brand we can announce and get people excited again, rather tahn attempting reuse of an existing one
17:50:38 <rhiaro> ... I hope that clarifies some intent
17:50:47 <rhiaro> eprodrom: that makes sense
17:50:54 <eprodrom> q?
17:51:16 <eprodrom> ack akuckartz
17:51:33 <rhiaro> akuckartz: I think we should discuss this by mail
17:51:44 <rhiaro> ... I think the fact that there are more than 120 members of the fedsocweb CG
17:52:14 <rhiaro> ... Almost all of them were becoming members over a long period of time because they're itnerested in decentralised social web, and I think this should be a factor in deciding the future of how to build a new CG
17:52:15 <tantek> note: everyone in all past CGs should absolutely be invited to join the new SWICG
17:52:21 <rhiaro> ... It's completely inactive at the moment
17:52:24 <tantek> to be clear on inclusivity intent
17:52:36 <rhiaro> ... The social IG should take this task, which was closed down
17:52:40 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/community/fedsocweb/ 124 people
17:52:48 <rhiaro> ... To rebuild a CG it will be eaiser than in the past because of the WG, but it still is a lot of effort
17:52:52 <rhiaro> ... to create a group
17:53:13 <rhiaro> ... Many of the people who are conerned about the social web, I don't think .. if the active members from the WG join then the CG will become active again
17:53:26 <AdamB> AdamB has joined #social
17:53:36 <rhiaro> ... Regarding the name, I don't care very much about that, federated or not, but the aim is to have a decentralised social web and that should be reflected, even if it's just social
17:53:48 <rhiaro> ... I think everybody knows the CG will not have the target of creating silos
17:54:02 <eprodrom> ack annbass
17:54:22 <rhiaro> annbass: seems like we're talking about similar things and we want to capture the members of this group, and the closing IG, and the existing CGS
17:54:43 <rhiaro> ... we all share an interest in the existing standards, I agree with tantek's point that we want to capitalise on the identity we've built through this group
17:54:45 <tantek> q-
17:54:47 <rhiaro> ... Just how to move forward is the quesiton
17:54:53 <annbass> ack annbass
17:54:55 <eprodrom> q?
17:55:16 <rhiaro> cwebber2: new topic... I should have put this on the agenda
17:55:33 <rhiaro> ... There was something that was discussed at the f2f is whether AP coudl bei n the AS2 namespace or in its own namespace
17:55:44 <rhiaro> ... It significantly simplifies things for AP if it's in the AS2 namespac
17:55:46 <rhiaro> e
17:55:58 <rhiaro> ... then if someone uses the AS2 mime type it will match up
17:56:12 <rhiaro> ... I forget whether there was a resolution, but neither AS2 editors were present
17:56:19 <rhiaro> ... it looks like inbox has moved forward with being included in the LDP namespace
17:56:31 <rhiaro> ... it would be great to knwo if we could work on getting the AP terms into the AS2 namespace
17:56:41 <rhiaro> ... Especially because it seems like there is precedent to do that rightnow
17:56:43 <rhiaro> ... this is a quesiton for evan
17:56:51 <rhiaro> ... I should probably point out taht I do have an issue about this that lists the terms
17:56:56 <cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/132
17:57:26 <rhiaro> eprodrom: the ideas is that the activitypub terms that... great... let's get james on this
17:57:33 <rhiaro> ... and we'll figure out which if any of these are going to go into AS2
17:57:44 <rhiaro> <rhiaro> just to note that this isn't about putting them in the AS2 *spec* just the namespace
17:57:57 <rhiaro> cwebber2: it's critical that we figure this out before CR
17:58:04 <rhiaro> sandro: i thought james chimed in on the issue and said it was okay
17:58:09 <rhiaro> cwebber2: I think you're right
17:58:15 <rhiaro> ... That matches what I remember
17:58:27 <rhiaro> ... At that point, evan would you available to help move forward with that?
17:58:31 <rhiaro> ... We just need the promise that it will happen
17:58:36 <rhiaro> ... We can just switch the context over
17:58:53 <rhiaro> eprodrom: you want me to add 13 new properties to AS2? And we have to identify where they fit
17:58:56 <rhiaro> q+
17:59:21 <rhiaro> cwebber2: they don't have to go into the AS2 spec, just the ns
17:59:27 <rhiaro> eprodrom: so we'd have things in the ns document that aren't in the spec?
17:59:34 <rhiaro> sandro: the idea is that extensions to AS2 would share the namespace
17:59:44 <rhiaro> ... and so AP would be the first of those extensions but there could be others
17:59:55 <rhiaro> ... so people using AS2 with a bunch of extensions don't need a bunch of different namespaces
17:59:57 <rhiaro> q-
18:00:06 <rhiaro> eprodrom: sounds good. No big objection, just making sure we're on-plan
18:00:14 <rhiaro> ... So what you're asking is to have these items added to the json-ld context?
18:00:17 <rhiaro> cwebber2: that's correct
18:00:29 <rhiaro> rhiaro: I'll do that
18:00:57 <rhiaro> rhiaro: we also need a human friendly version of the AS2 namespace, we'll work on that as well
18:00:58 <eprodrom> q?
18:01:02 <eprodrom> ack cwebber
18:01:11 <annbass> thanks a lot rhiaro and eprodrom!
18:01:13 <rhiaro> eprodrom: if that's everything, we can close
18:01:15 <eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting
18:01:15 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
18:01:15 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been rhiaro, on, irc, but, not, call, (spotty, wifi), sandro, aaronpk, tantek, annbass, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, csarven, julien, AdamB,
18:01:17 <wilkie> thanks
18:01:18 <rhiaro> ... thanks everyone
18:01:18 <Zakim> ... eprodrom, wilkie, akuckartz
18:01:19 <cwebber2> thanks everyone, esp rhiaro and eprodrom !
18:01:21 <julien> Thanks Evan!
18:01:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:01:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/04-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:01:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
18:01:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items