16:04:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
16:04:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/14-social-irc
16:04:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:04:50 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
16:04:52 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:04:52 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
16:04:53 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:04:53 <trackbot> Date: 14 February 2017
16:04:58 <aaronpk> present+
16:05:02 <aaronpk> scribenick: aaronpk
16:05:06 <annbass> present+
16:05:22 <julien> julien has joined #social
16:05:26 <julien> present+
16:05:29 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
16:05:30 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+
16:05:38 <aaronpk> topic: approve past meeting minutes
16:05:40 <aaronpk> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-12-06-minutes
16:05:43 <aaronpk> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-12-13-minutes
16:05:46 <aaronpk> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-01-10-minutes
16:06:14 <sandro> present+
16:07:03 <cwebber> wtf
16:07:13 <tantek> present+
16:07:18 <cwebber> lol
16:08:14 <csarven> present+
16:08:35 <annbass> +1
16:08:47 <aaronpk> tantek: can I get some +1s for approving all the minutes?
16:08:58 <aaronpk> evanpro: +1 they look fine
16:09:08 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1 they were all quite short thankfully
16:09:08 <sandro> +1
16:09:14 <tantek> zakim, who is here?
16:09:14 <Zakim> Present: aaronpk, annbass, julien, ben_thatmustbeme, sandro, tantek, csarven
16:09:15 <aaronpk> <aaronpk> +1
16:09:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see tantek, julien, Zakim, RRSAgent, annbass, KevinMarks, oshepherd, lambadalambda, ben_thatmustbeme, geppy, dwhly, bitbear, bigbluehat, csarven, strugee, KjetilK,
16:09:17 <Zakim> ... cwebber, mattl, raucao, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rhiaro, wseltzer, trackbot, sandro
16:09:31 <julien> +1
16:09:35 <cwebber> +1
16:09:36 <julien> (there was a lot to read!)
16:09:40 <aaronpk> tantek: okay, the minutes are approved
16:09:54 <aaronpk> RESOLVED: approve minutes from Dec 6, Dec 13, and Jan 10
16:10:13 <julien> +1
16:10:15 <aaronpk> tantek: straw poll, does this new time good for people? neutral? or worse?
16:10:17 <cwebber> +1
16:10:19 <aaronpk> +1
16:10:19 <julien> +1
16:10:23 <sandro> +1 new time is slightly better for me
16:10:23 <aaronpk> evanpro: 0
16:10:33 <ben_thatmustbeme> -0 slightly worse but doable
16:10:53 <annbass> fine with me, but I'm much more flexible than others (being retired)
16:11:12 <aaronpk> tantek: seeing no objections and only slightly worse from one person, we'll stick with this.
16:11:26 <aaronpk> RESOLVED: the new telcon time is the time of this call
16:11:37 <aaronpk> evanpro: which tuesday of the month are we doing our calls on?
16:11:58 <aaronpk> tantek: that's our next topic, we've been agreeing each time. any proposals for tuesdays in march?
16:12:41 <ben_thatmustbeme> no conflicts with any tuesday in march for me
16:12:44 <aaronpk> aaronpk: -1 to march 28th, everything else is fine
16:12:44 <sandro> (no difference to me)
16:12:46 <tantek> note the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th are the tuesdays
16:12:55 <csarven> definitely not the last week of march
16:13:03 <csarven> 14, 21 best
16:13:38 <julien> 14+
16:13:41 <julien> 21-
16:13:51 <aaronpk> tantek: any objections to the 14th? any counterproposals?
16:13:57 <aaronpk> PROPOSED: next telcon is the 14th
16:13:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
16:13:59 <annbass> +1
16:14:01 <aaronpk> +1
16:14:04 <aaronpk> evanpro: +1
16:14:04 <cwebber> +1
16:15:01 <aaronpk> RESOLVED: our next telcon will be March 14th 11am Eastern time
16:15:11 <aaronpk> note that the 12th is daylight savings time!
16:15:25 <sandro> +1
16:15:37 <aaronpk> TOPIC: remaining CR specs to PR
16:15:45 <aaronpk> tantek: first one is activitypub, chris are you there?
16:15:55 <aaronpk> cwebber: i have not as good news as i'd hoped
16:16:14 <aaronpk> ... i ended up spending a lot of time preparing other projects for releases and preparing talks, but did not advance the stuff in the group itself
16:16:25 <aaronpk> ... i'm hoping to send an update to the list with a prototype of a test suite
16:16:38 <aaronpk> tantek: are there any issues that have arisen since the last telcon that need attention?
16:16:41 <aaronpk> cwebber: not that i'm aware of
16:16:57 <aaronpk> tantek: okay let's move on to AS2. evan?
16:17:14 <aaronpk> evanpro: i think we have some good news. we've had a number of implementation reports come in, around 6?
16:17:45 <aaronpk> ... i was looking at which features had been implemented in which reports, but realized that amy had a fantastic script to generate that automatically
16:17:51 <sandro> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams LINKS IT
16:17:53 <aaronpk> ... amy can you share the URL?
16:18:10 <sandro> http://as2.amy.gy/reports.html
16:18:12 <ben_thatmustbeme> http://as2.amy.gy/reports.html
16:18:47 <aaronpk> evanpro: if you can take a look at that, a big part of the vocabulary is green which is nice
16:19:06 <aaronpk> ... there are a few that are unimplemented, and a few that have a single implementation
16:19:07 <tantek> wow this looks great!
16:19:53 <aaronpk> ... two things: if there are parts of the vocab that are unimplemented, that people feel cannot be left behind, my review of that table is that there was nothing on there that I wasn't willing to see drop off
16:20:08 <aaronpk> ... i wanted to check with other folks, and if that's the case then let's just drop those out of toe vocabulary to move to PR
16:20:16 <rhiaro> I didn't rerun the script for the new reports yet
16:20:18 <tantek> one question for Evan (can you repeat Sandro on the phone?) which / how many of the implementations are from outside the group?
16:20:35 <KevinMarks> -1 to new telcon time, (survivorship bias)
16:21:13 <tantek> KevinMarks: except that the people here on the call are about the same as recent telcons at the old time - so actual data of attendance disputes your assertion of survivorship bias
16:21:27 <aaronpk> evanpro: for example, the "place" object type, we have implementations of lat/lng, one of altitude, and none of accuracy
16:21:43 <aaronpk> sandro: tantek asks how many implementations are from outside the group?
16:21:47 <aaronpk> evanpro: i think we have two from outside
16:21:49 <tantek> which ones?
16:22:18 <aaronpk> sandro: i know web annotations needs a bunch of stuff here, so i nudged them to get us implementation reports
16:22:30 <aaronpk> ... i know at least rob sanderson submitted his and that hasn't been reflected in the table yet
16:23:10 <tantek> we still need them to submit implementation reports for AS2 in particular, not just assume "by transitive"
16:23:20 <sandro> yes, I made that clear
16:23:21 <tantek> we have pretty particular tests and such
16:23:25 <tantek> thanks sandro
16:23:25 <aaronpk> evanpro: are these implementation reports for as2 or from web annotations?
16:23:35 <sandro> I don't think we have tests, tantek
16:23:39 <sandro> on stuff like this.
16:23:45 <tantek> huh
16:24:01 <sandro> I think we just ask if you're using this term properly
16:24:26 <aaronpk> evanpro: what i was hoping to do today was to say we have implementations here and take some terms out of this CR and move to PR
16:24:40 <aaronpk> ... it sounds like you're saying there are some properties that webannotations uses that aren't reflected in these reports
16:24:51 <tantek> agreed with dropping any unimplemented properties (with annotations exception)
16:24:52 <aaronpk> sandro: i know chris has talked about activitypub needing some of these and not sure if these are all green yet
16:25:02 <Guest18> Guest18 has joined #social
16:25:11 <sandro> cwebber ping ?
16:25:18 <rhiaro> present+
16:25:25 <Guest18> present+
16:25:48 <aaronpk> cwebber: the only ones i'm seeing that are a big deal are followers/following
16:25:55 <tantek> rhiaro: any chance you can regenerate http://as2.amy.gy/reports.html with latest reports?
16:26:09 <bengo> present+
16:26:13 <tantek> present- Guest18
16:27:08 <aaronpk> sandro: the orange bars are the most concerning, since somebody implemented them but there isn't more than one implementation
16:27:33 <aaronpk> evanpro: web annotations are hoping to move to PR by feb 24th, and they can't do so unless activitystreams is out of PR
16:27:43 <tantek> no they need to move to REC
16:27:47 <aaronpk> ... so there is some schedule pressure on us to advance this, and we won't have another telcon before their deadline
16:27:57 <tantek> and they need AS2 to be in PR
16:27:57 <aaronpk> sandro: i think i may have slightly overstated the case
16:28:12 <aaronpk> ... they can proceed as long as we give them strong assurances that we are moving forward and the thing sthey rely on will move forward
16:28:33 <tantek> also, do the [x]s mean *both* publishing and consuming?
16:29:14 <aaronpk> evanpro: my main concern is i don't want to leave this open forever. i would like to work quickly to receive implementation reports from activitypub and web annotation implementations to show that we meet the threshold for the properties they depend on
16:29:29 <aaronpk> cwebber: i can get you a report by the end of the week
16:29:31 <tantek> q?
16:29:32 <tantek> q+
16:29:33 <aaronpk> q+
16:29:44 <aaronpk> sandro: we can do it without a meeting, or we could hold another meeting
16:30:05 <aaronpk> cwebber: is it possible to vote for PR with a window to add the extra terms assuming we get the reports by X date?
16:30:14 <aaronpk> sandro: i think we need to be a little more explicit
16:30:47 <aaronpk> tantek: the one question i wanted to ask is i can't tell if the green X's mean publishing or consuming or both and i find that pretty concerning
16:31:00 <aaronpk> ... for example if there's a property with a lot of publishers but no consumers, i would still consider that unimplemented
16:31:22 <aaronpk> cwebber: that's more of an activitypub thing, it seems like more of an api question
16:31:24 <aaronpk> tantek: i totally disagree
16:31:52 <aaronpk> ... for testing activitystreams, as we discussed before, for something to count, a consumer has to do something interesting rathre than just parse it and do a syntax transformation
16:32:07 <aaronpk> sandro: the line you're making makes sense to me, but to my memory we didn't say this before
16:32:28 <tantek> we explicitly made this in the criteria
16:32:30 <aaronpk> evanpro: i'm pulling up the AS spec, we have acceptance criteria and it does require publishers and consumers
16:32:37 <tantek> and the consumers can't just be syntax transformers
16:32:38 <aaronpk> ... so tantek is absolutely right
16:32:49 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#exit-criteria
16:33:05 <julien> present+
16:33:09 <julien> (call dropped)
16:33:30 <aaronpk> sandro: (reading the exit criteria)
16:33:34 <bengo> AFAICS exit criteria doesn't mention consumer/producer
16:33:42 <ben_thatmustbeme> q+ to mention that implementation reports have comsumer/producer/both listing
16:34:38 <aaronpk> cwebber: what i'm worried about is if we require this do we have to redo all implementation reports?
16:34:50 <tantek> I'm pretty surprised people don't remember this
16:34:52 <tantek> we debated this a lot
16:35:07 <aaronpk> ben_thatmustbeme: : there was a field in the implementation report to indicate this, they don't split it by term but it's for the overall implementation
16:35:08 <tantek> and made it very clear the importance of both publishing and consuming
16:35:19 <rhiaro> yeah can do
16:35:40 <aaronpk> <aaronpk> i definitely remember this discussion and that's why it's taken me so long to build the test suites and reports because i'm specifically testing both sides
16:35:44 <sandro> +1 rhiaro
16:36:12 <aaronpk> rhiaro: everyone has used a different syntax to indicate publisher/consumer, but yeah i can do it by next week
16:36:29 <tantek> similarly for any API features, need both client and server support
16:36:52 <tantek> can we provide guidance for consistent syntax?
16:36:59 <tantek> to indicate publisher and consumer?
16:37:17 <ben_thatmustbeme> rhiaro, it should be just pulling the 'Application Role: ' line, which seems to be common
16:37:28 <rhiaro> okay ben_thatmustbeme, probably straightforward
16:37:31 <aaronpk> evanpro: we need to document that we have publishers and consumers on each side of the equation. we should have at least a yellow marking around the ones that are published but not consumed, etc. even if there are multiple publishers.
16:37:59 <tantek> also, I'd say 2+ consumers per property should be required, otherwise we're just testing a monoculture (whether you can publish to *one* implementation that consumes it) which is also not a standard
16:38:21 <aaronpk> evanpro: web annotations was useful that they used AS2 over something else and i'd liek to be helpful in any way i can
16:38:36 <aaronpk> sandro: we also did resolve to go to PR in feb, so i like the idea of sticking with what we commit to
16:38:41 <aaronpk> tantek: we didn't resolve to, but that was our plan
16:38:51 <aaronpk> ... that was a "when do you think we can get to PR" not a specific resolution
16:39:12 <aaronpk> sandro: i'm wondering about having a meeting in 2 weeks with the goal to go to PR then
16:39:20 <aaronpk> evanpro: that sounds great
16:39:21 <tantek> I am available to meet on the 28th
16:39:27 <cwebber> +1 on meeting for two weeks
16:39:31 <ben_thatmustbeme> I would not that changeing those X's to P's would effect some of that list
16:39:32 <sandro> +1
16:39:33 <aaronpk> tantek: strawpoll proposal for a meeting on the 28th same time
16:39:34 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
16:39:34 <rhiaro> I'll probably not be available
16:39:36 <aaronpk> +1
16:39:37 <bengo> +1
16:39:39 <rhiaro> in transit
16:39:40 <annbass> +1
16:40:14 <tantek> rhiaro: as long as you can have updated that script or have someway for sandro to update it?
16:40:28 <rhiaro> shouldn't be a problem
16:40:54 <aaronpk> RESOLVED: telcon on feb 28th at 11am eastern
16:41:25 <aaronpk> tantek: the requirements that we're putting in place for AS2 is that the summary indicates whether each term is published or consumed, and that we get impelmentation reports from the annotations folks with that level of detail
16:41:33 <aaronpk> ... let's give them the deadline of the monday the 27th
16:42:08 <aaronpk> sandro: as soon as amy updates the list we can say what things are safe and not safe
16:42:20 <aaronpk> tantek: the other thing i wantedf to call out, is we should be requiring 2+ publishers and consumers
16:42:27 <aaronpk> sandro: that's not what we said in the exit criteria
16:42:39 <aaronpk> tantek: it's clear we didn't reflect all the details in the exit criteria that we agreed on the group
16:42:57 <aaronpk> ... the point is if you only have one implementation then you don't really have a standard. i would have a hard time saying that's vetted by implementations
16:44:26 <aaronpk> evanpro: i'd like to propose we see where we are at the next meeting and decide then
16:44:47 <aaronpk> sandro: we haven't yet solved what web annotations needs today
16:44:55 <aaronpk> tantek: we need implementation reports from them
16:45:09 <aaronpk> evanpro: i don't understand what they want today
16:45:15 <bengo> They want to know by 08:00 UTC Wednesday that AS2 will definitely reach PR and contain the terms they depend on
16:45:27 <bengo> They'd really like a transition request by the 21st. Is this possible?
16:45:35 <aaronpk> tantek: we can tell them that we're not making a decision about taking off the properties until they send us implementation reports
16:46:42 <aaronpk> evanpro: i don't think we're making assurances that the properties they need are part of the spec. however we can make the assurance that if there are properties they need that are in the spec that have implementation reports that that will be part of the spec.
16:46:45 <rhiaro> That seems okay to me
16:46:48 <aaronpk> sandro: that makes sense
16:48:01 <tantek> all I was trying to say is we don't kick anything out for the next two weeks
16:48:12 <tantek> indepedent of annotations needs etc.
16:48:29 <rhiaro> we should vote on that..
16:48:33 <bengo> we should vote on that
16:49:09 <sandro> PROPOSED: We will retain, unchanged, in AS2 everything for which we get 2+ implementations reports (possibly setting the bar at 2+ producers and 2+consumers)
16:49:14 <Loqi> yea
16:49:24 <sandro> (and expect to recqure PR at Feb 28 meeting)
16:49:26 <tantek> +1 with requiring the 2+ c & p bar
16:49:30 <sandro> (and expect to request PR at Feb 28 meeting)
16:49:35 <sandro> +1
16:49:36 <bengo> +1
16:49:41 <aaronpk> +1
16:49:54 <rhiaro> +1, minus moving the bar
16:50:02 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
16:50:05 <cwebber> 0: I feel like there's a new requirement thrown in that wasn't here before
16:50:10 <bengo> possibly
16:50:10 <aaronpk> evanpro: +1
16:50:15 <tantek> rhiaro: I'm also minus on moving the bar, to less than 2 impls
16:50:27 <cwebber> ok
16:50:30 <cwebber> then +1
16:50:38 <annbass> +1
16:50:48 <sandro> sandro: We not saying we WILL move the goalposts, just acknowledging that we MIGHT
16:50:55 <tantek> exactly what evan just said
16:51:02 <cwebber> fair enuf
16:51:02 <aaronpk> evanpro: this isn't necessarily moving the goalposts. we may have resolutions not reflected in the exit criteria, so that would be the communication issue here
16:51:07 <tantek> +1
16:51:22 <aaronpk> RESOLVED: We will retain, unchanged, in AS2 everything for which we get 2+ implementations reports (possibly setting the bar at 2+ producers and 2+consumers)
16:51:30 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
16:51:30 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2017/02/14-social-irc#T16-51-30
16:51:58 <julien> I don;t think that's enough for websub
16:52:00 <julien> arraon?
16:52:08 <aaronpk> <aaronpk> agreed julien
16:52:13 <aaronpk> TOPIC: LDN
16:52:57 <aaronpk> csarven: we have 6 implementations of receivers. i haven't reached out to get implementation reports of senders yet.
16:53:26 <aaronpk> ... the spec is current, we basically just added editorial changes
16:53:30 <aaronpk> ... the editor's draft is up to date
16:53:52 <aaronpk> ... from now until when we propose PR, we have to get 2+ implementation reports
16:54:07 <aaronpk> tantek: so to be clea,r there are no new issues that require the groups attention and no normative changes?
16:54:10 <aaronpk> csarven: right
16:54:22 <aaronpk> ... we have one issue that's been waiting for commenter for ages
16:54:33 <aaronpk> tantek: we'll process that when we exit
16:54:38 <aaronpk> ... sounds like LDN is in good shape
16:54:48 <aaronpk> ... we're waiting for reports from senders. so maybe we can get those in the next 2 weeks
16:55:04 <aaronpk> csarven: is there a deadline for when we have to berequesting PR?
16:55:13 <aaronpk> tantek: before the charter extension expires
16:55:23 <aaronpk> ... so we can work backwards from there
16:56:10 <aaronpk> csarven: can we publish a new CR? the last one was in november.
16:56:14 <aaronpk> tantek: are there normative changes?
16:56:16 <aaronpk> csarven: no
16:56:32 <aaronpk> tantek: then i would recommend not doing that since it would reset the clock. i would recommend putting the editorial changes in PR.
16:56:44 <aaronpk> sandro: i believe we can publish a new CR without restarting the clock as long as there are no normative changes
16:56:52 <aaronpk> tantek: okay then let's go for it
16:57:09 <rhiaro> The process was recently clarified on that, we can publish editorial changes without restarting the process
16:57:25 <tantek> rhiaro that process doesn't take effect until March 1
16:57:26 <aaronpk> PROPOSED: publish a new CR of LDN with editorial changes assuming it does not restart the CR clock
16:57:30 <rhiaro> oh
16:57:37 <annbass> +1
16:57:38 <csarven> +1
16:57:40 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
16:57:41 <sandro> +1
16:57:43 <cwebber> +1
16:57:44 <bengo> +1
16:57:47 <aaronpk> +1
16:58:02 <aaronpk> RESOLVED: publish a new CR of LDN with editorial changes assuming it does not restart the CR clock
16:58:52 <tantek> https://tantek.github.io/post-type-discovery/index-src.html
16:58:58 <tantek> resolves 13 16 18
16:59:02 <julien> can we put websub first in 2 weeks?
16:59:12 <ben_thatmustbeme> i wonder if we can bring up f2f in last few minutes
16:59:30 <julien> I'll do a write up to the ML later today
16:59:38 <julien> about the websub issues
17:00:03 <rhiaro> from plh about process: Besides updating the transition requirements to accommodate Process 2017, I also updated them to make sure we're applying Process 2015 correctly.
17:00:03 <rhiaro> 1. Updating a Candidate Recommendation with only editorial changes: See https://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=https://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions2017.html&xslfile=https://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions2017.xsl&docstatus=cr-editorial-tr Note that your publication request must assert that changes are only editorial.
17:00:21 <julien> +!
17:00:23 <julien> +1
17:00:33 <annbass> +1
17:00:34 <sandro> +1 extended meeting in 2 weeks, Feb 28   2 hours
17:00:37 <cwebber> +1
17:00:42 <aaronpk> PROPOSED: extend Feb 28th telcon to 2 hours
17:00:45 <rhiaro> +0 regrets
17:01:02 <aaronpk> +1
17:01:11 <cwebber> strong interest
17:01:14 <cwebber> in f2f
17:01:32 <julien> SF? Boston?
17:01:42 <sandro> +0 if it's boston, not likely to travel for this
17:02:02 <aaronpk> tantek: sandro can i ask you to put together a doodle poll for getting interest in locations and dates for an april f2f?
17:02:18 <cwebber> early april would be bets
17:02:19 <cwebber> best
17:02:25 <cwebber> because I'll already be in Boston on March 25-26
17:02:33 <cwebber> and I could just stick around if it's super early
17:03:17 <aaronpk> RESOLVED: extend Feb 28th telcon to 2 hours
17:03:51 <annbass> thanks all..
17:04:02 <aaronpk> tantek: keep an eye out for sandro's poll, and otherwise everyone get back to implementing! thanks everyone.
17:04:09 <aaronpk> trackbot: end meeting
17:04:09 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:04:09 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, annbass, julien, ben_thatmustbeme, sandro, tantek, csarven, rhiaro, Guest, bengo, !
17:04:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:04:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/14-social-minutes.html trackbot
17:04:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:04:18 <RRSAgent> I see no action items