See also: IRC log
<aaronpk> good morning
hola aaronpk
<julien> hey. do we have the call today?
<sandro> Yes
<cwebber2> hi, dialing in
<julien> what's the dial in info?
<tantek> good morning #social!
<aaronpk> i'll PM you julien
<aaronpk> oh good, I see we have "spotty wifi" on the call
<bengo> k
<ben_thatmustbeme> preset- call (spotty wifi)
<aaronpk> tantek++
<Loqi> tantek has 306 karma (47 in this channel)
<eprodrom> hi all
<annbass> yo eprodom
<sandro> eprodrom, you on phone?
<cwebber2> I should have put AP on the agenda
<cwebber2> anyone mind if I toss it on now?
<tantek> cwebber2: still time to do so - add to end of discussion items
<annbass> hi julien
<eprodrom> I am now
<ben_thatmustbeme> do we have a scribe?
<eprodrom> PROPOSAL approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-13-minutes as minutes for 9/13/2016 meeting
I normally go through and clean the f2f minutes up but I haven't had chance to do that yet
<scribe> scribenick: rhiaro
<tantek> rhiaro - shall we postpone f2f minute approval to next week then?
<eprodrom> +1
<cwebber2> +1 with endorsement for rhiaro to do any cleanup she feels like if she wants to still
<aaronpk> +1
eprodrom: please review Sep 13 minutes
<rhiaro> +1
<annbass> +1
<tantek> +1
<wilkie> +1
<csarven> +1
<eprodrom> RESOLVED approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-13-minutes as minutes for 9/13/2016 meeting
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
... any objections to that?
... Okay, postponed to next week
<eprodrom> TOPIC November face-to-face details
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: Planning on
doing our last f2f in November
... Sandro?
sandro: at the last f2f we worked
through dates and possibilities and came to Nov 17 and 18 in
Boston or SF
... I mentioned that on email and people expressed preferences
to Boston
... tantek and I talked this over, so unless someone has a last
mintue problem with boston vs SF, that's what we'll do
... Anyone?
... eprodrom, you're the one haven't heard from
eprodrom: isn't that thanksgiving?
tantek: week before
aaronpk: thanksgiving is the 24th
eprodrom: then no problems, let's do it
tantek: get +1s?
<annbass> +1 .. altho not sure I'll make it
<eprodrom> PROPOSED f2f meeting on 17 and 18 Nov 2016 in Boston
<sandro> +1 I'll be there (hosting)
<eprodrom> +1 will attend
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1 will be there in person
<cwebber2> +1 (and I intend to attend)
sandro: on your +1s say whether you expect to attend
<aaronpk> +1 will attend
<tantek> +1 will attend
<wilkie> +1 will attend
<rhiaro> +1 will attend pending funding
<cwebber2> just got booted from call
<cwebber2> re-calling
<eprodrom> RESOLVED f2f meeting on 17 and 18 Nov 2016 in Boston
<wilkie> rhiaro: boston is easy!
eprodrom: any other discussion we need to have about this?
<annbass> thanks tantek
tantek: I can create the boilerplate wikipage and sandro can update as host
<cwebber2> back
sandro: It'll be in the room called Kiva at MIT
<ben_thatmustbeme> When reading the minutes, i'm assuming its okay to have a 4th F2F in a year?
<sandro> Meeting will be in G449 (Patil/Kiva room)
<cwebber2> it would be nicer if the group had an extension and we could meet in early 2017 ;)
tantek: the charter says we
should have 3 per year, so if anyone wants to object they
can
... but we haven't had any objections so far
... but if anyone does feel strongly we should not meet, please
speak up, it's your right per the charter
<eprodrom> TOPIC Micropub update
aaronpk: just a quick update. I did the security and privacy review for it and that's not incorporated into the latest ED
<aaronpk> https://micropub.net/draft/#security-and-privacy-review
<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Micropub
aaronpk: Would love some feedback
on that
... 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
... The other micropub update is that I've been making progress
on the test suite
... micropub.rocks is up and running now
... It has tests for creating posts in form encoded and json,
and also updating
... just working through tests based on the issues
<aaronpk> https://micropub.rocks/
aaronpk: So if you do have a
micropub implementation please feel free to take a look at
that
... 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
eprodrom: that's excellent, what
a good idea
... how do you format it?
... is it a copy and paste kind ofthing?
aaronpk: It's just stored, each
test has a nubmer so I can store whether it passed or failed
each test
... So I'll be able to generate that in whatever format we
need
eprodrom: any more on micropub?
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss security reviews browser vs what we spec
tantek: the thing about the
security and privacy questionnaire mostly sounding like it's
been written from a browser perspective is accurate
... that was the driving force behind writing it up
... getting editors aware of security and privacy implications
implementing w3c specs in the browser
... but we shoould be interpreting those questions
liberally
... and think about the intent, what are they getting at in
terms of vulnerabilities
... 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
... concerns about cookies, or implementations being stored on
the browser, eg. for private browsing mode
... 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
... in some juristictions there are rules about that
... eg. europe, the ability to be forgotten by the server
... anything that sounds browser specific, think about what it
measn for the server to have to do the equivalent
... 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
... It'll help to have examples in our specs where we're doing
that
<eprodrom> TOPIC Webmention update
<eprodrom> I hear it too
<aaronpk> https://webmention.net/draft/#security-and-privacy-review
<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Webmention
aaronpk: Did the security and privacy questionnaire for webmention as well
<AdamB> i hear it a little, not too much
aaronpk: would love feedback on results
<aaronpk> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kH385v6skHbMre_bmz1Vyma8BDemt7WHlM0ZQwVXBOo/edit?usp=sharing
aaronpk: the other thing with
webmention is I took all of the implementation reports that are
submitted and complied into a spreadsheet
... there are 8 senders and 7 receivers recorded
... what I did is marked for each test whether the person had
reported it passing
... and column B is the percent of implementatons that passed
each test
... With senders they're all essentially 75% and higher
implemented.
... With receivers, everything except 2 features have more than
one implementation, marked in yellow
<sandro> +1 Bravo aaronpk Very Nice
<eprodrom> Thumbs up
aaronpk: they're the only two
that are red flags for those features
... very happy to see there are already 2+ implementations of
everything in the sepc
eprodrom: impressive
... private webmention?
aaronpk: after the f2f we had an
indiewebcamp in brighton
... a few of us brainstormed extension to webmention that would
allow it to work for URLs that require access control
... My hackday project was to write it up as a spec
<aaronpk> https://indieweb.org/Private-Webmention
aaronpk: this is written as an
extension
... a couple of extra things before the webmentino processing,
then it hands off to regular webmention processing
... excited about this, and we already have implementations
started
... three combinations of sending and receiving right now
... happy to be able to say that there will be an answer to how
webmention works with private content
... once it has more implementations we'll add it to the list
of extensions on the spec
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?
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
... a separate issue is what people do with that
... my intent is not to specify how or when peopel should show
comments
... that will depend on why the post is private and what
audience it's for
... I expect now that implementations would not show them as
comments except maye for the owner of the site
... but I want to leave that open for more intelligent display
of received comments
... the whole goal o fthis spec was to get the verification to
work with authenticated content
eprodrom: specifying the
intention early might be good to avoid mistakes
... 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
... 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
... What scenario would there be where I have it private on my
site but you can make it public on yours?
aaronpk: I would expect it to
have the same access control as the source
... 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
eprodrom: it seems like being
more conservative in this case might be better, but it's
obviously up to you how people use it
... but sounds very interesting
... Anything else?
<cwebber2> nope
<cwebber2> refresh!
<cwebber2> http://w3c.github.io/activitypub/
cwebber2: There have been a
number of changes to AP and when we spoke at the f2f we talked
about publishing a new WD
... There's a new ED with a changelog of all the changes
... 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
... Other than that mostly editorial
... but I would like to propose releasing a new WD
<tantek> link to change log?
<cwebber2> http://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-from-13-september-2016-to-present-version
PROPOSAL: Publish new WD of ActivityPub
<cwebber2> +1
<eprodrom> +1
<sandro> +1
<rhiaro> +1
<annbass> +1
<akuckartz> +1
<wilkie> +1
sandro: the plan is still to vote on CR a week from now?
cwebber2: yes that's the plan
<bengo> +1
<aaronpk> +1
tantek: the changes look really
good
... 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?
<tantek> +1 publish new WD!
cwebber2: I've already closed 1, and the other 2 I know what's happening, so I'm pretty confident
RESOLUTION: Publish new WD of ActivityPub
cwebber2: Bringing AP to CR and
the steps I'm taking towards that
... I am working to make sure that everythign is in the right
state for ??
... security and privacy section was added, planning on adding
to the CR wiki page
... I'm not sure if this should be on the document itself, the
testing plan
... I do have a general sense of what that's gonna be
... I have also sent the requests for horizontal review, and
we've already got responses from i18 and a11y (off list)
... I'm not sure when it will be on list
... they're fine with it
... that's good news
... 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
... we've already got a good amount, not all on the wiki page
yet
<cwebber2> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/ActivityPub_wide_review
cwebber2: will be working on that
today, and collapsing tha tpage into the CR page on the
wiki
... I have been getting feedback, the majority was people
concerned about the cryptographic integrity of the
document
... 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
... 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
... I don't think signatures are going to make it in, but I've
left text on how that might be done
... Cleared it up so the method of verification is left
open
... That was surprising so far, but they seem very interested
in that
... And some other feedback I'll be getting to over the
week
... I'm pretty confident about us being able to hit CR next
week
eprodrom: good news. Anything more?
<cwebber2> eprodrom, tantek is on the queue
<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?
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?
... That if servers decided to adopt that extension they'd have
some way of discovering that they are talking to someone who
supports signatures?
... And potentially satisfy the commenter concerns in that
way?
... Part 2 of this question is from hearing aaron's discussion
about private webmention, is there / shoulld there be
relation?
... or is that only high level?
... you two can figure that out
cwebber2: Yes I think it can be
done as an extension
... I'm interested in continuing that conversation
... Especially after the group winds down
... We've all elft this space open in our specs
... to leave verification somewhat ambiguous with some proposed
methods for doing so
... 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
... So yes I'm interested in collaborating with aaron and
anyone who is interested
... and whether or not it applies to the private messaging
stuff
... 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
... where if you send a message to someone' sfollowers and
someone replies and people up the chain don't see it
<eprodrom> I got kicked off the call
<eprodrom> One moment
cwebber2: so weh ave a forwarding
mechanism but without a clear way of identifying that a message
really came from that person
... the disapora people emphasised that
... it's an interesting point, they really rely on that
... 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
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
... and worked on in the context of that CG
... that's the right thing to do
... 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
... without a particular timeline or deadline
... which is nice
... and if at some point in the future we have enough critical
mass tow rite up normatively we can go through another wg
process
... but I don't want to get ahead of myself
... Just for folks who weren't at the f2f, we did decide to
create a CG
... and transition any new work into that CG
... we agreed not to start any new drafts at the f2f
... so we do have a continuity story, just not in this WG
<eprodrom> TOPIC Activity Streams
eprodrom: i had a task to take on
some of the outstanding bugs on the validator
... I'll be doing that this week
<cwebber2> oh
eprodrom: And that takes us to the end. Anything else?
<Zakim> annbass, you wanted to say something about next steps (when this topic is done)
annbass: We agreed at the f2f to start a CG to continue the follow on
<julien> Maybe PubSubHubbub? (not that I have nything special to say though...)
annbass: 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
<cwebber2> notably I also surprisingly bumped into https://www.w3.org/community/activitypub/ today :)
annbass: we can continue to
conversation on the followon by email
... andreas says there are people in that CG who are interested
and might want to re-engage
<ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2, i brought that up when we first changed the name, no one responded
<cwebber2> my response was not to this
<cwebber2> so do tantek first
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
built recommendations for
scribe: and I feel like we've
built 'brand recognition' with the good work the WG has
done
... and to keep that and indicate that there's continuity
here
... 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
... what we've done before, plus the other CGs
... 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
... I hope that clarifies some intent
eprodrom: that makes sense
akuckartz: I think we should
discuss this by mail
... I think the fact that there are more than 120 members of
the fedsocweb CG
... 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
<tantek> note: everyone in all past CGs should absolutely be invited to join the new SWICG
akuckartz: It's completely inactive at the moment
<tantek> to be clear on inclusivity intent
akuckartz: The social IG should take this task, which was closed down
<sandro> https://www.w3.org/community/fedsocweb/ 124 people
akuckartz: To rebuild a CG it
will be eaiser than in the past because of the WG, but it still
is a lot of effort
... to create a group
... 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
... 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
... I think everybody knows the CG will not have the target of
creating silos
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
... 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
... Just how to move forward is the quesiton
cwebber2: new topic... I should
have put this on the agenda
... There was something that was discussed at the f2f is
whether AP coudl bei n the AS2 namespace or in its own
namespace
... It significantly simplifies things for AP if it's in the
AS2 namespac
e
scribe: then if someone uses the
AS2 mime type it will match up
... I forget whether there was a resolution, but neither AS2
editors were present
... it looks like inbox has moved forward with being included
in the LDP namespace
... it would be great to knwo if we could work on getting the
AP terms into the AS2 namespace
... Especially because it seems like there is precedent to do
that rightnow
... this is a quesiton for evan
... I should probably point out taht I do have an issue about
this that lists the terms
<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/132
eprodrom: the ideas is that the
activitypub terms that... great... let's get james on
this
... and we'll figure out which if any of these are going to go
into AS2
<rhiaro> just to note that this isn't about putting them in the AS2 *spec* just the namespace
cwebber2: it's critical that we figure this out before CR
sandro: i thought james chimed in on the issue and said it was okay
cwebber2: I think you're
right
... That matches what I remember
... At that point, evan would you available to help move
forward with that?
... We just need the promise that it will happen
... We can just switch the context over
eprodrom: you want me to add 13 new properties to AS2? And we have to identify where they fit
cwebber2: they don't have to go into the AS2 spec, just the ns
eprodrom: so we'd have things in the ns document that aren't in the spec?
sandro: the idea is that
extensions to AS2 would share the namespace
... and so AP would be the first of those extensions but there
could be others
... so people using AS2 with a bunch of extensions don't need a
bunch of different namespaces
eprodrom: sounds good. No big
objection, just making sure we're on-plan
... So what you're asking is to have these items added to the
json-ld context?
cwebber2: that's correct
rhiaro: I'll do that
... we also need a human friendly version of the AS2 namespace,
we'll work on that as well
<annbass> thanks a lot rhiaro and eprodrom!
eprodrom: if that's everything, we can close
<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting
<wilkie> thanks
eprodrom: thanks everyone
<cwebber2> thanks everyone, esp rhiaro and eprodrom !
<julien> Thanks Evan!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/sepc/spec/ Found ScribeNick: rhiaro Inferring Scribes: rhiaro Default Present: rhiaro, on, irc, but, not, call, (spotty, wifi), sandro, aaronpk, tantek, annbass, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, csarven, julien, AdamB, eprodrom, wilkie, akuckartz Present: rhiaro sandro aaronpk tantek annbass ben_thatmustbeme cwebber WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 04 Oct 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/04-social-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]