IRC log of social on 2017-02-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:01:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
16:01:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:01:19 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:01:19 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
16:01:21 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:01:21 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
16:01:22 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:01:22 [trackbot]
Date: 28 February 2017
16:01:37 [bengo]
16:02:06 [aaronpk]
16:02:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
16:02:25 [cwebber]
16:02:27 [cwebber]
I don't hear anyone yet
16:02:49 [sandro]
16:03:00 [cwebber]
16:05:07 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
16:07:15 [tantek]
great! thanks ben_thatmustbeme
16:07:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
16:07:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribe:Ben Roberts
16:07:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
16:07:51 [tantek]
16:08:03 [tantek]
zakim, who is here?
16:08:03 [Zakim]
Present: bengo, aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, sandro, tantek
16:08:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see tantek, Zakim, RRSAgent, bengo, fabrixxm, strugee, ben_thatmustbeme, AdamSkwersky, bitbear, dwhly, wilkie, cwebber, pdurbin, rhiaro, wseltzer, trackbot, sandro, Loqi_,
16:08:05 [Zakim]
... aaronpk, mattl, geppy, jet, bigbluehat, lambadalambda, raucao, oshepherd, csarven
16:09:18 [sandro]
present+ jasnell
16:09:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: reconfirm next telcon
16:09:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we are currently schedules for 3/14 are there any objections to that?
16:10:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: one thing we should mention is the meeting time, i don't know if you have noticed KevinMarks complaining about it
16:10:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i did
16:10:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: though I don't take that as seriously since he wasn't on every meeting in the other time slot
16:11:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: he made some, but this time is better for Amy and also probably better for Europeans
16:11:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: if Kevin raises a serious objection we'll deal with that
16:11:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... if anyone gets the sense its more serious, we will deal with it
16:12:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: lets say that the march telcon time is confirmed
16:12:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: approval of past telcon minutes
16:12:18 [tantek]
16:12:39 [aaronpk]
16:12:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
PROPOSED: approve minutes of 2-14
16:12:43 [bengo]
+1 to approving those minutes
16:12:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
16:12:48 [bengo]
16:12:50 [cwebber]
16:13:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2-14
16:13:14 [sandro]
16:13:16 [csarven]
Oh, just realised there is a meeting.
16:13:55 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
16:14:13 [eprodrom]
16:14:22 [cwebber]
16:14:28 [cwebber]
16:14:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
(discussion of order of meeting agenda)
16:14:32 [cwebber]
I +1'ed twice
16:15:09 [csarven]
16:15:11 [eprodrom]
16:15:16 [eprodrom]
ben_thatmustbeme: thanks!
16:15:43 [cwebber]
AP can be short
16:16:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: Micropub CR to PR
16:16:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i put a meta-item for it to the agenda for any CR to PR discussion
16:17:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... the questions are 1) test-suite ETA and imp. coverage, 2) ... (refer to agenda)
16:18:18 [aaronpk]
16:18:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: unfortunately the test-suite has not made any new progress. It is only a client test, and i realized taking time to do that would push the entire schedule back. So instead i created a implementation report template
16:19:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... as of this point there are 11 client implementation reports are submitted
16:19:15 [aaronpk]
16:19:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i put together a summary just like webmention as well
16:20:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... dark green is more than half of the implementations have implmented it, light green is at least 2, and anything with only 1 is yellow
16:20:43 [aaronpk]
16:20:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
the only thing that has only 1 is a vocabulary that was just put in for curiousity
16:21:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: (the link) is the server report as well. I should probably do it as a spreadsheet as well
16:21:44 [cwebber]
16:21:56 [sandro]
16:22:01 [sandro]
16:22:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... for example 20, 21, and 22 are all one for example, in the spreadsheet version those would all be in one row
16:22:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: so those are all ways you can do it? i'm trying to understand
16:22:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: yeah, they are different ways to recognize a successful update
16:22:46 [cwebber]
16:22:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: does that mean that clients must handle all 3
16:23:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: exactly, in the client report there is a line about it handling all 3
16:23:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: that makes sense to me, if its looser on the server side its stricter on the client side
16:23:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... it would be great to see the spreadsheet version of this as well
16:24:00 [tantek]
ack cwebber
16:24:00 [cwebber]
16:24:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... it looks like there are at least 2 implementations of each feature
16:24:05 [tantek]
ack sandro
16:24:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: yes, we have had that for a while
16:24:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i'm on the client report, its great that you made all those implementations but i dont' think you having 2 implementations of a feature should really count
16:25:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... just looking down the rows there is only 1 feature that looks to have that issue
16:25:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
ben_thatmustbeme: i have plans to update one of my clients which is out of date for that
16:25:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: there are a few that i could ask to go and implement it
16:26:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think it would be arguably challenging to have two implementations from the same person. you might be making the same decisions even if they are the same code base
16:27:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: it would be nice to not count your own, the editor has a short-cut which is their brain
16:27:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: sandro, are you proposing we don't count editor implementations at all?
16:27:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i'm not, its raising the bar late in the game, but it would make a stronger case
16:27:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: does that mean we should delay going to PR?
16:28:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i'm not really proposing that
16:28:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: this sort of hits me as odd but its because so many parts are only optional
16:28:33 [cwebber]
also note that we're getting to the halfway mark on the hour and we have a *big* topic today with AS2
16:28:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: yes thats because its possible and very useful to have clients that only support creating, if the server supports that at all
16:29:13 [aaronpk]
cwebber, but we didn't really started until about 15 minutes into the hour anyway ;-)
16:29:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: this reminds me a lot of the as2 report where different implementations use different sets
16:30:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: it kind of surprising to me in a protocol to have that though, it sort of gives me the sort of thin-ice feeling
16:30:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it, it just doesn't give me the security
16:31:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i could also group the categories by those who actually implement updating at all
16:31:28 [tantek]
16:31:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i guess the question is, do you feel like those 2 implementations from outside the group are good enough?
16:31:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i do
16:32:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: thats sort of on the WG to decide if thats enough
16:32:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: to that point i feel like external implementations carry more weight
16:33:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... when i see multiple implementations from outside the working group, i feel good about it, when i see only one, i am concerned, when there are none, i am very concerned. not that i would stop it, but I would find it very concerning
16:34:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i feel like this group is on more thin-ice than i am used to as usually everyone is paying attention to all the specs and this group is more clustered to people only looking at some specs
16:34:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: so whats the summary of the implmentation status given all of this, i suppose there is the one sandro pointed out
16:34:41 [cwebber]
16:34:50 [tantek]
ack cwebber
16:34:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: that one would be certainly good to get another implementation that is not me
16:35:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: i am just going to suggest that we set a time limit on this so that we can get to AS2 since that is why we scheduled this meeting
16:35:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i am okay with that, but micropub did get bumped
16:36:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: we also agreed this was a 2 hour meeting
16:36:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i am getitng the feeling we are not ready for CR based on this one feature?
16:37:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i agree but i don't think we need a meeting to do that, maybe we could approve pending that
16:37:20 [tantek]
16:37:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: that said i wouldn't stop it based on that, but it makes a better case when going in to the meeting on it
16:37:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: so it sounds like it may be worth waiting
16:38:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think its worth waiting a week or two
16:38:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: so 2+ implmentations one of which should be not the editor's
16:39:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: so we could agree that we propose with it pending that one item
16:39:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i would prefer to go with that
16:39:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: any issues needing group discussion?
16:39:29 [aaronpk]
16:39:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: no, changes are documented in changelog on editors draft
16:39:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... they are editorial clarifications
16:40:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: sounds like you have ticked all the boxes, anyone else?
16:40:42 [eprodrom]
16:41:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i wanted to ask, with that proposal, if there are any other changes in the time we are waiting for that implementation....
16:42:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: you mean changes in the spec?
16:42:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: its possible at any time that someone can file a new issue, we can't control that
16:43:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
PROPOSED: move micropub to CR pending an implementation of query for a single property
16:43:20 [sandro]
that should be PR not CR
16:44:06 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Move MicroPub to PR, pending an implementation of query for a single property (from someone other than Aaron)
16:44:13 [sandro]
16:44:14 [cwebber]
16:44:16 [aaronpk]
16:44:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
16:44:36 [tantek]
zakim, who is here?
16:44:36 [Zakim]
Present: bengo, aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, sandro, tantek, jasnell, csarven, eprodrom
16:44:38 [Zakim]
On IRC I see eprodrom, tantek, Zakim, RRSAgent, bengo, fabrixxm, strugee, ben_thatmustbeme, AdamSkwersky, bitbear, dwhly, wilkie, cwebber, pdurbin, rhiaro, wseltzer, trackbot,
16:44:38 [Zakim]
... sandro, Loqi_, aaronpk, mattl, geppy, jet, bigbluehat, lambadalambda, raucao, oshepherd, csarven
16:44:43 [eprodrom]
16:44:59 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Move MicroPub to PR, pending an implementation of query for a single property (from someone other than Aaron)
16:45:25 [fabrixxm]
fabrixxm has left #social
16:45:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: post type discovery
16:45:43 [tantek]
16:45:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i hope this will be fast as its just a request to publish an updated WD
16:46:05 [eprodrom]
chair: eprodrom
16:46:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... it resolves some issues on github, it has a few minor fixes
16:46:27 [eprodrom]
16:46:44 [tantek]
16:46:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: your description is pretty straight forward, are tehre any questions from the group?
16:47:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
16:47:20 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: publish a new working draft of Post Type Discovery based on current editor's draft
16:47:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: if there are no questions from the group... i think we can move to the proposal
16:47:34 [aaronpk]
+1 no questions, looks good
16:47:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
16:47:40 [eprodrom]
16:47:42 [tantek]
16:47:49 [bengo]
16:47:58 [sandro]
16:48:00 [cwebber]
16:48:26 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: publish a new working draft of Post Type Discovery based on current editor's draft
16:48:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: are there other points on PTD you'd like to bring up during the meeting?
16:49:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think there were a couple issues i was waiting for commenter, let me pull those up to see if there are any that are worth the groups time
16:49:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... one of the issues that i resolved with consensus in the thread was issue 13, which is waiting for response from the person to say that its ok
16:49:44 [tantek]
16:50:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i just want to get confirmation from the group that this is a good resolution to this issue
16:52:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: so its been waiting for commenter for a while and now we are looking to close it
16:52:25 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: close issue #13 of Post Type Discovery as resolved
16:53:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: yes, per our github workflow we wait for original commentor to close it, or we get a group proposal to close it
16:53:20 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: close issue #13 of Post Type Discovery as resolved since text was added to the document
16:53:32 [bengo]
16:53:32 [eprodrom]
16:53:33 [cwebber]
16:53:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
16:53:36 [aaronpk]
16:53:38 [tantek]
16:53:44 [sandro]
16:54:02 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: close issue #13 of Post Type Discovery as resolved since text was added to the document
16:54:41 [eprodrom]
chair: tantek
16:54:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: ActivityPub to PR
16:55:30 [cwebber]
16:55:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: as we did with micropub can we go through the list of bullet points
16:56:07 [bengo]
16:56:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: i've been pushing hard to get implementations, i have a large set of features implmented and groundwork for the test suite, i have been working on mostly implementing to help AS2
16:56:35 [tantek]
ack bengo
16:57:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
bengo: i just want to ask this as an activitypub implmentor, is there any real chance that this will be a REC? I don't mean to offend anyone, but we have such a limited amount of time, is it better for the CG?
16:58:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: the WG believes the spec is ready for implmentations, we are trying to make sure that the spec as written is implementable, there has been a bunch of work there
16:58:46 [eprodrom]
16:58:49 [aaronpk]
16:59:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
bengo: i think cwebber and I are the only ones that have started implementing, and there isn't even an report template yet
16:59:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: cwebber would you be able to make up an implementation report in the next 2 weeks?
16:59:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
??: its in the PR
16:59:50 [csarven]
I think rhiaro has (part?) AP implementation
17:00:02 [Loqi_]
Abasset made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-02-28]]
17:00:02 [Loqi_]
Sandro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-02-28]]
17:00:02 [Loqi_]
Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-02-28]]
17:00:03 [Loqi_]
Aaronpk made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-02-28]]
17:00:20 [bengo]
I understand and respect your time constraints cwebber, just forcing the issue
17:00:45 [bengo]
Happy to move on w/ agenda now that I've poked a bit. cwebber++ for work so far.
17:00:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: sorry, thats my fault, I will look at what bengo did and i will build on that. I also will say that the implementor behind mastadon is planning to implement, the intent is to get it done
17:01:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: certainly, we appreciate all the work you have done, the intent is to get it to REC, but the focus has been more on AS2, i expect that AP will see increased activity in the next month
17:02:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: i appreciate that bengo is trying to push things forward too, i should have a bunch more information by next time
17:02:31 [bengo]
17:02:43 [cwebber]
17:02:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we have an agenda for next telcon, i'll leave it to you cwebber to add it to the agenda there
17:03:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:03:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i'll let you take it eprodrom
17:03:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: is amy on the call?
17:03:55 [csarven]
17:04:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: 2 weeks ago the concern we had was that we were going to miss some of the features for AP and annotications because we didn't have implementations for them
17:05:13 [sandro]
a bit out of date:
17:05:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... and we had them at risk really. the good news is that we have had a number of new implementation reports come in over the last few weeks, several in the last 24 hours
17:06:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i was trying to run amy's script but have been getting an error, i think we are pretty confident that it is no longer a concern
17:06:47 [bengo]
I will scribe
17:06:59 [bengo]
how do I scribenick
17:07:00 [eprodrom]
ben_thatmustbeme: there's a bug that's throwing an error
17:07:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: bengo
17:07:44 [bengo]
eprodrom: If your python is strong cwebber you may be able to fix what I couldn't
17:08:06 [bengo]
eprodrom: Having a new version would help with discussion
17:08:35 [sandro]
contentMap, etc
17:08:39 [bengo]
eprodrom: Second concern we had that didn't come up last week but did come up since is the feature of languageMaps. Feature where instead of having simple strings for some values, there's an object with language code to -> string mapping
17:08:49 [sandro]
cwebber, it's linked from
17:08:57 [sandro]
17:09:01 [bengo]
eprodrom: We only had one implementation of that as Publisher and Consumer
17:09:04 [bengo]
eprodrom: I did one implementation of this for node.js impl. It should cover these features
17:09:09 [bengo]
eprodrom: They were high priority because they are the i18n mechanism
17:09:37 [bengo]
I can implement this for if it will move the needle.
17:09:43 [tantek]
wow that's great!
17:09:44 [bengo]
eprodrom: Fortunately we do have implementations for these.
17:10:06 [bengo]
eprodrom: The 3 lang maps to have 2 impls both publishers and consumers
17:10:28 [bengo]
eprodrom: We've come to the last sticky wicket.
17:10:33 [eprodrom]
17:11:10 [bengo]
eprodrom: We've discussed several times the criteria for existing CR. When we discussed last week, we remembered that in previous meeting we talked about requiring 2 publishers and 2 consumers for each feature of the spec.
17:11:24 [bengo]
eprodrom: We had not actually raised that to the level of a proposal or resolution.
17:11:37 [bengo]
eprodrom: I think we had talked about it informally, but it had not come out to modify the exit criteria
17:11:51 [bengo]
eprodrom: We had expected to have this requirement, but the exit criteria says differently
17:12:24 [bengo]
eprodrom: It would be nice if this requirement was not a material difference.
17:12:49 [bengo]
eprodrom: On the implementation report now. With the implementaitons that came in this week, I believe we're fully covered for the ones that are light green. Which is good news.
17:13:15 [bengo]
The implementation report doesn't ask, for each feature, whether you are a publisher or consumer
17:13:17 [bengo]
just if you are *overall*
17:13:24 [bengo]
and then it adds 'PC' to every feature you mark as 'y'
17:13:44 [bengo]
eprodrom: It comes down to what we want to do as a group
17:14:00 [bengo]
eprodrom: My inclination is that we should make a change to the exit criteria to make it 2 pubishers and 2 consumers. Then we don't need to push it anymore.
17:14:05 [bengo]
eprodrom: Then we move as expected, any features that dont meet that
17:14:29 [bengo]
eprodrom: It would let us move on
17:14:45 [bengo]
I would like to stop scribing and q+ to discuss my previous comment
17:14:57 [bengo]
tantek: sandro what do you think of eprodrom proposal?
17:15:25 [tantek]
q+ bengo
17:15:31 [eprodrom]
17:15:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:15:47 [bengo]
sandro I'm torn. I like having more implementaiton reports. But I don't see any evidence that we agreed on this. I couldn't find anything in minutes, and I looked for awhile. It's been like a year so I don't remember our discussions. But I can see the minutes.
17:16:00 [bengo]
sandro I've been in lots of WGs that don't use that standard. So I think I would have noticed
17:16:08 [bengo]
sandro: My inclination is to keep it at the lower bar
17:16:16 [bengo]
sandro That's clearly good enough in other places
17:16:23 [bengo]
tantek Can you cite a place
17:16:27 [bengo]
sandro Web Annotations
17:16:29 [bengo]
tantek Seriously?
17:16:39 [bengo]
sandro I think so. Their bar is that consumers are enough.
17:17:04 [bengo]
tantek I read their exit criteria. And despite their saying nothing about doing something meaninful. It did mention you must consume it and produce valid triples, etc
17:17:12 [bengo]
tantek From my reading it sounded like they wanted 2 producers and consumers
17:17:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:17:17 [tantek]
ack bengo
17:17:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:17:39 [eprodrom]
17:17:39 [Loqi_]
ben_thatmustbeme has 61 karma in this channel (184 overall)
17:17:41 [eprodrom]
17:18:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
bengo: i wanted to point out that as evan said, looking at the reports as they are rendered now, don't give us an accurate reflection of that
17:18:13 [cwebber]
17:18:17 [cwebber]
Pubstrate does implement Mention btw
17:18:25 [cwebber]
I must have missed it :\
17:18:28 [cwebber]
on the IR
17:18:42 [eprodrom]
17:18:46 [tantek]
cwebber, good thing we have the colors highlighting this! :)
17:18:48 [cwebber]
also some of these items weren't on the IR page, esp the AP specific ones
17:18:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
bengo: it doesn't ask you on the report if you are publishing and consuming on each, its just asking if you once
17:18:55 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
17:18:59 [cwebber]
eg inbox, endpoints, etc, were not on the template
17:19:09 [cwebber]
they aren't in AS2 core tho
17:19:14 [cwebber]
those are AP extensions
17:19:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: do you know of an implementation that publishes some features and consumes others
17:19:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
bengo: I'm sure mine does, but i think if we want to change exit criteria it should take that in to account
17:19:47 [sandro]
I see only 'inbox' and 'outbox' are light green. Used by sloph (Amy) and
17:19:47 [tantek]
17:19:50 [tantek]
17:20:05 [bengo]
it me :)
17:20:09 [cwebber]
17:20:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i don't want to change exit criteria with bad data in front of it
17:20:20 [cwebber]
can I reply to that
17:20:29 [cwebber]
I don't think they are in AS2's terms
17:20:51 [cwebber]
17:20:54 [eprodrom]
17:20:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: it looks like inbox and outbox are the only things, and since thats your implementation, would you be okay with that being an extension?
17:21:02 [tantek]
ack cwebber
17:21:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
bengo: i would be, but if we change the ..
17:21:52 [bengo]
FWIW I said I would be okay with those not being in AS2
17:22:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: it makes sense that those aren't there since they aren't actually in the implementation report, and they also aren't even part of AS2, they are part of activity pub!
17:22:54 [sandro]
+1 add "FYI" note to extensions and stuff like that
17:23:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think i mostly agree with cwebber, with the other implementation reports summary table, we've put the extension type things at the bottom so its more just additional FYI, its certainly not required, but i think its good signaling, of "look at how green the spec is, and huh here's some interesting extensions in there i should look at"
17:23:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... if its possible, could we do that? and i'm hoping whatever generates this could do that as well
17:24:03 [sandro]
17:24:05 [eprodrom]
17:24:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: that sounds good to me, the bonus implementation report items
17:24:25 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
17:24:30 [sandro]
17:25:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: so i don't want to have anyone file implementation reports again, it would be great if we could change the report creation script so you could specify i'm only publishing or consuimg this feature. I don't think we are really going to have a feature thats going to come up where thats material
17:26:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... some of these are libraries so they are just dealing with these in a similar way, so i think its unlikely that they will be dealing with them in a seperate way from consuming and publishing
17:27:14 [sandro]
17:27:22 [cwebber]
+1, would love to have it, doesn't need to hold up implementation
17:27:25 [cwebber]
17:27:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... looking throught the report now i'm not seeing any case where we have 2 publisher and 2 consumers, but i don't think thats the case
17:27:29 [cwebber]
17:27:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i don't want to hold up publication for that
17:28:01 [cwebber]
not Mention
17:28:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: let me summarize that, are you saying based on the report you are determined of what makes sense to drop to go to PR?
17:28:07 [cwebber]
I just submitted a PR
17:28:27 [cwebber]
it wasn't in the template, but Pubstrate implements Mention
17:28:28 [sandro]
Are we all looking at
17:28:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: yes, all of those that are in red and probably some in light green as they are not part of the spec
17:28:36 [cwebber]
17:28:41 [cwebber]
I can reply
17:28:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i only see one yellow which is 'mention', can you clarify that?
17:28:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i wouldn't wait for more implementation reports on it, honestly
17:29:00 [tantek]
17:29:03 [tantek]
ack cwebber
17:29:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: that was another one of the things that was missing from the template and just got added.
17:29:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... it is implmented by one more thing than is listed there
17:29:52 [bengo]
There will still be only 1 implementation
17:29:52 [bengo]
there are 0 now right?
17:29:52 [bengo]
17:30:01 [bengo]
my bad
17:30:02 [tantek]
17:30:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: that one would go green at that point
17:30:13 [sandro]
I just copied to
17:30:24 [bengo]
sandro thanks
17:30:47 [cwebber]
I don't use it in any meaningful way
17:30:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i think the only main item in red that i would be concerned about would be ... relationship. there wasn't a place for it in the implementation report
17:30:51 [bengo]
17:30:57 [cwebber]
I think that's just: IsScontact, IsFollowedBy, IsFollowing, IsMember
17:30:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i haven't seen it in ay of the implementations that came in
17:31:01 [bengo]
17:31:01 [bengo]
got it
17:31:03 [cwebber]
er IsContact
17:31:15 [bengo]
17:31:23 [bengo]
... i dont use and never have
17:31:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: is it also followers and following?
17:31:30 [cwebber]
I'm okay with that being axed personally
17:31:34 [cwebber]
it could be an extension
17:31:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: thats from AcitivtyPub
17:31:41 [cwebber]
if someone needs it
17:31:42 [tantek]
I'm seeing the following in red: IsContact, IsFollowedBy, IsFollowing, IsMember, as, authorizeClientKey, endpoints, followers, following, oauthClientAuthorize, preferredusername, provideClientKey, proxyUrl, source, uploadMedia
17:32:00 [cwebber]
tantek, and everything that isn't the Is* things is part of activitypub
17:32:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... the proposal that was on the table was to make a change to the exit criteria, i'm not sure what happens when we change that before going to PR
17:32:13 [tantek]
thanks cwebber, appreciated.
17:32:25 [tantek]
17:32:27 [cwebber]
I don't see any reason to hold off on going to PR
17:32:27 [tantek]
ack sandro
17:32:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: we can't change our exit criteria, we can remove things from the spec and hold off going to PR as a group, we can do that just among ourselves, similar to what we did with micropub
17:33:02 [bengo]
Can we... remove the red properties, then propose to raise the criteria bar given that all the remaining properties will still be in the PR, then go to PR?
17:33:20 [cwebber]
17:33:34 [cwebber]
the AP items don't show up on the previous report
17:33:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: there are 2 things here, 1 is to agree to go to PR and to get these in to a state that would allow us to get this in an clearer form
17:33:43 [cwebber]
I'm not sure why they show up on the new, generated report
17:33:48 [cwebber]
17:34:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... not all of this work has to be done before we go to PR but before we ask our staff contact to take it to w3c management
17:34:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
s/go to PR/vote to go to PR/
17:34:50 [tantek]
17:34:53 [tantek]
ack cwebber
17:34:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: normatively speaking, we have to drop the relationship vocabulary stuff ... but let me go to queue
17:35:00 [cwebber]
17:35:37 [eprodrom]
17:35:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: the last generated as2 report didn't show inbox, i would suggest we just remove those or move them down
17:35:40 [eprodrom]
17:35:48 [eprodrom]
17:36:05 [cwebber]
+1 on that
17:36:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i have opened up an issue on the report generator to filter out properties that are not part of as2 in to an extensions area
17:36:54 [sandro]
17:38:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: can we just have a resolution to remove those 4 items we specified?
17:38:07 [tantek]
I'm seeing a bunch of yellow here that I'm not seeing on
17:38:27 [bengo]
and Mention?
17:38:40 [bengo]
17:38:53 [sandro]
bengo, cwebber said he implemented Mention but didnt report it because it wasnt on template
17:38:54 [bengo]
sorry thanks tantek
17:39:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
PROPOSED: drop ask-risk terms, isContact, isFollowedBy, isFollowing, isMember from AS2
17:40:11 [bengo]
17:40:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:40:15 [sandro]
+1 since no one has reported implementing them, it seems safe to drop
17:40:15 [cwebber]
17:40:26 [csarven]
17:40:55 [eprodrom]
17:41:00 [eprodrom]
17:41:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
RESOLVED: drop ask-risk terms, isContact, isFollowedBy, isFollowing, isMember from AS2
17:42:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: now that we have resolved to drop those as normative terms, do you want to consider them as extensions? are these still a good idea? we put them in the CR, but no one implmented them
17:43:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: the reason we had these was that we had some issues in the group that we had already had ... (cracked up a little) ... referring to external vocabulary, we should have a simple way to bring it in
17:43:40 [sandro]
The report shows nothing from activity-streams.js which suggests the report is not being processed properly
17:43:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... it appears to be something that we are not putitng a lot of implementation in to, adding those as another external vocabulary, would not be very helpful
17:43:45 [eprodrom]
17:44:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think we can vote on go to PR then
17:44:47 [csarven]
17:44:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: if you are accepting what evan is proposing
17:44:49 [Loqi_]
17:44:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i don't understand
17:45:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: eprodrom point was that we do have multiple implementations for 2 producers and consumers
17:45:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i don't see a need for that, why would we even talk about that
17:46:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i agree with eprodrom that we update it that we had that was our original intent
17:46:12 [bengo]
17:46:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: no, its not minuted there
17:46:13 [Loqi_]
[sandro] RESOLVED: Our CR-Exit for AS2 will be: Each feature of AS2 must be used by at least two independent implementations
17:46:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: why do you want to spend time on this issue, what does it accomplish?
17:47:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: it strengthens our spec and continues a good practice of ..
17:47:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: the exit criteria will be dropped in the PR draft
17:47:32 [eprodrom]
17:47:34 [csarven]
I'm actually hearing that everything is fine
17:47:54 [tantek]
the "used" in the minutes is the part I'm seeing as requiring 2+ consumers
17:47:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i think we its a moot point with the point of what features we roll out
17:48:16 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: recommend going to PR with all features that have 2 publishers and 2 consumers
17:48:23 [cwebber]
it doesn't say 2 publishers 2 consumers in the thing that was RESOLVED
17:48:29 [cwebber]
it just says 2 implementations
17:48:36 [cwebber]
linked from minutes bengo posted
17:48:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: what i would propose is that we not change the exit criteria but we do this in our final vote
17:48:43 [tantek]
it says *used by*
17:48:54 [bengo]
-1 we should go to PR with what the exit criteria says...
17:48:54 [bengo]
because that's what they're for?
17:48:55 [cwebber]
17:49:00 [cwebber]
17:49:10 [cwebber]
suggested language!
17:49:12 [cwebber]
I'll type it out
17:49:25 [bengo]
go to PR with all features that haven't been removed?
17:49:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i'm not sure i understand what standing on principle will help us here, if we can find some language that appeases everyone here, we are just splitting hairs here
17:49:37 [cwebber]
17:49:40 [cwebber]
yeah that's good
17:49:41 [cwebber]
17:50:09 [csarven]
+1 to Sandro's version
17:50:11 [tantek]
17:50:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: but i dont' even know how to parse that, how about we just say we vote to go to PR
17:50:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i don't know what that means
17:50:47 [cwebber]
how about PROPOSED: ActivityPub move to CR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms) on the basis that all are satisfied that we have two implementations used of each term.
17:50:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: does that mean that we are deciding to publish or not
17:51:06 [cwebber]
17:51:07 [bengo]
cwebber is good
17:51:13 [cwebber]
PROPOSED: ActivityStreams to CR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms) on the basis that all are satisfied that we have two implementations used of each term.
17:51:18 [eprodrom]
17:51:24 [cwebber]
PROPOSED: ActivityStreams to PR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms) on the basis that all are satisfied that we have two implementations used of each term.
17:51:35 [sandro]
+1 !!
17:51:39 [cwebber]
17:51:40 [csarven]
17:51:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:51:44 [tantek]
PROPOSED: Take AS2 to PR with all features that have 2 publishers and 2 consumers, dropping terms that don't meet that as noted in
17:51:50 [bengo]
17:51:55 [sandro]
-1 tantek
17:51:56 [eprodrom]
+1 and +1
17:52:11 [bengo]
that's not the same tantek
17:52:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:52:33 [eprodrom]
Tastes great AND less filling
17:52:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i'm trying to capture evan's proposal
17:52:46 [eprodrom]
Drop my proposal please
17:52:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: don't, let evan capture evan's proposal
17:52:59 [eprodrom]
c uip;
17:53:06 [eprodrom]
17:53:13 [bengo]
eprodrom dropped his proposal. The next proposal state is cwebber 's
17:53:17 [bengo]
17:55:00 [tantek]
PROPOSED: Take ActivityStreams to PR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms per on the basis that each term is used by 2+ implementations.
17:55:04 [cwebber]
17:55:05 [csarven]
17:55:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:55:07 [eprodrom]
17:55:10 [bengo]
17:55:12 [sandro]
17:55:20 [eprodrom]
17:55:25 [tantek]
RESOLVED: Take ActivityStreams to PR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms per on the basis that each term is used by 2+
17:55:36 [csarven]
stop. break dance.
17:55:51 [tantek]
RESOLVED: Take ActivityStreams to PR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms per on the basis that each term is used by 2+ implementations.
17:56:05 [cwebber]
lol :) yay
17:56:12 [Loqi_]
17:56:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: 2 resolutions to go to PR in one call
17:56:41 [eprodrom]
17:56:46 [cwebber]
just drop 'em
17:56:48 [cwebber]
17:56:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: does anyone want those 4 dropped terms to be an extension or completely drop them?
17:57:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: yes as i understood it, we are just dropping them completely
17:57:21 [cwebber]
17:57:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:57:30 [eprodrom]
17:57:41 [tantek]
17:58:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: just an FYI, annotations kept their exit criteria as a note
17:58:08 [cwebber]
17:58:12 [cwebber]
just a comment
17:58:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
same here
17:58:23 [tantek]
ack tantek
17:58:25 [tantek]
ack cwebber
17:58:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: i suggest we remove the relationship example in there with an external URL
17:59:07 [eprodrom]
17:59:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: do we have an example of someone who is actually using that
17:59:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we were originally using relationship from (link), my intention is to just replace it with one of these
17:59:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i'll put a note on the issue
18:00:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: this is an informative example correct?
18:00:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: yes
18:00:17 [tantek]
ack ben_thatmustbeme
18:02:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
ben_thatmustbeme: i'll do my best to update the report generator if we can get some updates to those messed up reports and someone can send me a list of extension items from this list
18:02:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: do we want to drop the empty column?
18:02:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: lets move that to the issue that was opening on improvements to the report
18:02:58 [cwebber]
ben_thatmustbeme, here are the AP terms to be marked as extensions: as, authorizeClientKey, endpoints, followers, following, inbox, oauthClientAuthorize, outbox, preferredUsername, provideClientKey, proxyUrl, source, streams, uploadMedia
18:03:14 [eprodrom]
18:03:21 [tantek]
18:03:30 [eprodrom]
That's what I was asking for
18:03:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: one minute on the F2F, there are only 2 people that have said yes to any specific date, that does not bode well
18:03:48 [aaronpk]
FYI I just published the micropub server report summary
18:04:11 [cwebber]
sorry, hadn't replied earlier
18:05:41 [eprodrom]
I just added my times; thanks for sharing it
18:05:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
(discussion of likelyhood for f2f)
18:06:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we can try again for may, that would be the last possible chance for us though
18:06:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... what do people think about trying to do an F2F in may?
18:06:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: would it be any different for may?
18:07:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i don't see how we are going to come to a conclusion on this, other than it seems unlikely we are going to do this in may
18:07:30 [tantek]
18:08:10 [sandro]
cwebber, and it turned out to be super long anyway
18:08:20 [cwebber]
18:08:22 [eprodrom]
18:08:22 [Loqi_]
tantek has 49 karma in this channel (320 overall)
18:08:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
congrats everyone!
18:08:25 [eprodrom]
18:08:33 [eprodrom]
thanks so much for handling this great discussion
18:08:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
trackbot end meeting
18:08:50 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:08:50 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been bengo, aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, sandro, tantek, jasnell, csarven, eprodrom
18:08:58 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:08:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:08:59 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:08:59 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items