IRC log of social on 2017-03-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:01:32 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
15:01:32 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:01:34 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:01:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
15:01:36 [aaronpk]
15:01:36 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
15:01:36 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
15:01:37 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
15:01:37 [trackbot]
Date: 14 March 2017
15:02:01 [eprodrom]
We need a scribe?
15:02:13 [julien]
15:02:14 [eprodrom]
15:02:16 [csarven]
15:02:18 [tantek]
15:02:25 [ben_thatmust]
15:02:33 [cwebber]
cwebber has joined #social
15:02:37 [bengo]
15:03:14 [tantek]
last week's minutes btw:
15:03:19 [tantek]
Zakim, pick a victim
15:03:20 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ben_thatmust
15:03:30 [ben_thatmust]
i scribed last week
15:03:37 [aaronpk]
lol Zakim
15:03:39 [tantek]
Zakim, pick a victim
15:03:39 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose csarven
15:03:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:03:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i'll scribe again if needed
15:04:08 [cwebber]
15:04:22 [sandro]
15:04:27 [eprodrom]
scribenick; csarven
15:04:35 [eprodrom]
scribenick: csarven
15:04:40 [wilkie]
15:04:40 [csarven]
I don't remember commands.. so I just type stuff right?
15:04:44 [rhiaro]
scribe: csarven
15:05:04 [rhiaro]
15:06:34 [csarven]
eprodrom: First item is review our minutes
15:06:36 [eprodrom]
15:06:49 [csarven]
eprodrom: Please quickly review
15:06:50 [eprodrom]
15:07:06 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: accept as minutes for 2017-02-28 telecon
15:07:08 [eprodrom]
15:07:17 [wilkie]
15:07:21 [sandro]
15:07:27 [aaronpk]
15:07:28 [bengo]
15:07:41 [cwebber]
15:07:47 [rhiaro]
15:07:51 [tantek]
15:07:59 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: accept as minutes for 2017-02-28 telecon
15:08:29 [csarven]
eprodrom: First agenda item: discuss monthly call
15:08:36 [csarven]
... possibilities.. March 28 and another on APril 11
15:08:47 [sandro]
+1 biweekly
15:08:47 [csarven]
... uhhmm it feels like we have a lot of stuff..
15:08:48 [aaronpk]
+1 for every two weeks
15:08:55 [cwebber]
+1 on biweekly
15:09:15 [tantek]
+1 for 2017-03-28 and 2017-04-11, to be evaluated at 2017-04-11
15:09:20 [julien]
+1 for biweekly
15:09:25 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: schedule telecons for 2017-03-28 and 2017-04-11
15:09:28 [csarven]
... if we are okay I'd like to propose schedule telcon for ...
15:09:30 [tantek]
15:09:32 [julien]
15:09:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:09:36 [aaronpk]
15:09:36 [rhiaro]
+1 but not sure if I'll be available on 28th
15:09:39 [eprodrom]
15:09:40 [wilkie]
15:09:45 [tantek]
(I'm not sure we're going to be as busy after the next two telcons including this one)
15:09:46 [csarven]
I can't make it
15:09:59 [tantek]
(we can re-evaluate on 2017-04-11 accordingly)
15:10:06 [csarven]
Probably in flight at that time.
15:10:08 [csarven]
15:10:11 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: schedule telecons for 2017-03-28 and 2017-04-11
15:10:17 [tantek]
csarven both telcons?
15:10:23 [csarven]
ops .. sorry the first .
15:10:25 [cwebber]
I can't make the 28th
15:10:38 [csarven]
+1 to 2017-04-11
15:10:39 [cwebber]
well maybe I can
15:10:41 [cwebber]
but it will be hard
15:11:04 [cwebber]
how about, I will *try to* make the 28th :)
15:11:16 [tantek]
(honestly I'm hoping we make good progress with Websub on the 28th)
15:11:16 [csarven]
eprodrom: If you have strong opinions about the agenda please say ahead of time.
15:11:48 [csarven]
... if you prefer that we continue with the meetings w/o you being there, that's okay too.
15:11:51 [rhiaro]
and rhiaro
15:11:56 [rhiaro]
but I don't object :)
15:11:57 [csarven]
No strong objections. Please go ahead
15:11:58 [cwebber]
no objections
15:12:07 [tantek]
Zakim, who is here?
15:12:07 [Zakim]
Present: aaronpk, julien, eprodrom, csarven, tantek, ben_thatmust, bengo, cwebber, sandro, wilkie, rhiaro
15:12:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see cwebber, Zakim, RRSAgent, tantek, julien, eprodrom, bengo, timbl, fabrixxm, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, csarven, rhiaro, sandro, pdurbin, bitbear, dwhly, geppy, jet,
15:12:10 [Zakim]
... Loqi, strugee, wseltzer, aaronpk, raucao, lambadalambda, wilkie, trackbot, KjetilK, mattl
15:12:15 [fabrixxm]
fabrixxm has left #social
15:13:11 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
15:13:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:13:17 [csarven]
sandro: Assumed that we won't do the F2F based on last meeting
15:13:38 [rhiaro]
Maybe we just have a post-WG party in June
15:13:48 [csarven]
eprodrom: How about a new doodle for May?
15:13:53 [csarven]
sandro: :)
15:14:04 [csarven]
sandro: Hopefully by May we are past the point of meetings.. nothing substantive.
15:14:11 [csarven]
eprodrom: Okie dokie
15:14:27 [tantek]
possibly WG->CG transition?
15:14:51 [csarven]
sandro: We could do over the phone
15:15:16 [csarven]
tantek: One thing to use the meeting for that could be productive... the wrap up the stuff and the official kickoff for the CG
15:15:36 [csarven]
tantek: ... here are some stuff for the CG. Get people excited.. INvited folks beyond the WG. thinking out loud
15:15:49 [csarven]
tantek: ... to keep the moment going especially we close the WG
15:15:53 [csarven]
eprodrom: Open to it.. I have two questions.
15:16:00 [csarven]
eprodrom: what do nwe need to make it worthwhile.
15:16:06 [csarven]
eprodrom: can we ge tit for April or May?
15:16:14 [csarven]
tantek: May is logical time to do that.
15:16:15 [eprodrom]
# of people necessary
15:16:24 [rhiaro]
I can make it if it's in Europe between the 18th and 27th of May
15:16:31 [csarven]
tantek: As sandro said.. probably not much/likely to do at that point.
15:16:43 [csarven]
tantek: It'll be good to have an answer to where things can go
15:17:03 [csarven]
tantek: Especially for those that haven't been engaged with the WG
15:17:15 [csarven]
sandro: Can we move this discussion to the CG?
15:17:20 [csarven]
eprodrom: Do we have a wrap-up for us to do?
15:17:31 [tantek]
ok with that
15:17:33 [csarven]
sandro: I don' thtink we need that IRL wrap-up
15:17:36 [csarven]
eprodrom: I love voting
15:17:40 [tantek]
ok with what sandro was saying
15:18:00 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: No further F2Fs for WG; any future F2Fs under umbrella of CG
15:18:08 [sandro]
15:18:12 [tantek]
+1 I'm swayed by sandro's reasoning
15:18:14 [bengo]
15:18:18 [csarven]
eprodrom: Let's take this off our agenda and move it to CG's
15:18:21 [aaronpk]
15:18:25 [cwebber]
15:18:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:18:26 [csarven]
15:18:30 [eprodrom]
15:18:31 [rhiaro]
15:18:48 [KevinMarks]
I should be able to make this better, but currently not good broadband for calling in
15:18:49 [tantek]
note to CG co-chairs, you can also plan to ask for f2f time during TPAC
15:18:57 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: No further F2Fs for WG; any future F2Fs under umbrella of CG
15:19:11 [Loqi]
15:19:22 [csarven]
eprodrom: 20mins for admin \o/
15:19:30 [csarven]
eprodrom: Topic LDN
15:19:32 [KevinMarks]
(I'm in sunny Yorkshire)
15:19:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
15:19:47 [tantek]
thanks ben_thatmustbeme
15:20:03 [csarven]
15:20:05 [rhiaro]
listed all relevant links on agenda for LDN:
15:20:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: we're at a point where we only have editorial changes, we have a summary link for all 3 new reports we've collected, there are at least 2+ implmeentations per type of implementation
15:21:02 [sandro]
cwebber, aaronpk, TPAC is near SFO, Nov 6-10
15:21:14 [tantek] looks really good!
15:21:27 [eprodrom]
Yeah, wow!
15:21:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: (reviews stats for inside / outside of WG implementations, scribe missed the exact numbers)
15:21:45 [sandro]
15:21:59 [tantek]
15:22:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: we have a few more implementation reports in the works
15:22:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: looking at the implementation matrix looks great
15:22:38 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... there are 3 tests that do not appear widely implemented, are those optional?
15:23:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... PRCU, GLCG, and GNL
15:23:26 [rhiaro]
but yeah they're all optional
15:23:31 [rhiaro]
all MUSTs are all green
15:23:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: when its marked as inapplicable, there is no information for it, we are updating as we find out. if its inapplicable, they are not expected to implment that
15:24:29 [tantek]
q+ to ask two questions 1. how can we tell from the test tables which feature columns are optional, and 2. how can we tell from the test tables which implementation rows are editor, wg, outside wg?
15:24:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: so that sideways L symbol means this is the kind of implementation that isn't expected to do that, is that correct?
15:24:35 [tantek]
ack sandro
15:24:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: they may be processing it, but are not giving that information back out
15:25:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: not sure i understand
15:25:05 [rhiaro]
Note that using the test suite to send a report sends an LDN, and the report summary is an LDN consumer
15:25:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: in general this looks really good, aside from the axis flip which confused me too, is there some way we can indicate which features are optional vs MUST?
15:26:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... the second question, is it possible to indicate in the rows which were written by editor(s), inside the WG, and outside the WG
15:26:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i found that really useful to show how much support we have outside the WG
15:26:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... it makes LDN look even stronger
15:27:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... that way as we take it to PR, etc, it will be benefiticial
15:27:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: we can certainly group them, and mention it in the reports themselves
15:27:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: regarding the axis flip this is the "correct" way to show the data
15:27:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... thats convention
15:28:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: to be clear, i wasn't asking for the axis to be flipped, its just different from the way i saw on others
15:28:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... your reasoning makes sense
15:28:29 [eprodrom]
15:28:34 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
15:28:34 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to ask two questions 1. how can we tell from the test tables which feature columns are optional, and 2. how can we tell from the test tables which implementation
15:28:37 [Zakim]
... rows are editor, wg, outside wg?
15:28:50 [tantek]
ack tantek
15:29:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: for marking optional vs required, we could do that, part of the test was to catch the most common things people are doing. as there are no fails right now. I could mark the things that are optional on the columns possibly
15:29:40 [rhiaro]
15:29:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: that would be great
15:30:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: minor note, the reports are submitted as an LDN, when the reports are created, its sent to the summary as an LDN,
15:30:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: so the summary itself is a conforming LDN
15:31:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... and there is rdfa on these too which, maybe someone will use in the future
15:31:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i think that we are fairly stable with the reports and the spec
15:31:16 [rhiaro]
15:31:26 [eprodrom]
ack eprodrom
15:32:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i have a question, about activitypub and LDN. one of the goals of having LDN in this group was to have the distribution mechanism for AP. I don't know that any of these are also AP implementations. I'm sort of concerned about going to PR without having an AP implementation using it. I know thats unfortunate coupling, but i wanted to ask cwebber about that
15:33:26 [rhiaro]
I believe bengo's is AP or nearly AP too
15:33:30 [tantek]
I for one don't want to block LDN PR on asking for more AP implementation
15:33:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: i'm pretty sure that rhiaro was able to make her implementation use them. I could probably make my implementation do that. We specify it in the spec of how they are similar, but we don't demonstrate that outside of amy's impl.
15:33:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: certainly .....
15:33:59 [csarven]
bengo's is AP as well
15:34:03 [bengo]
true story
15:34:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: my implementation is AP and LDN compatible, its slightly broken currently, and i think bendo is using both as well
15:34:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:34:15 [tantek]
The strong interop documented by the tables demonstrates there's sufficient critical mass / implementation testing of the spec IMO
15:35:06 [eprodrom]
ack eprodrom
15:35:10 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
15:35:11 [eprodrom]
ack rhiaro
15:35:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: if thats the case then i feel comfortable, then i want to go forward with it, but go forward with eyes open that we have light implementation of the two of them together. But i think it will be benefitial to AP to have a distribution mechanism at PR
15:35:49 [csarven]
15:35:52 [sandro]
rhiaro: Anything that's in gray is because it's an optional feature. Failed mandatory would be red.
15:35:55 [sandro]
15:36:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i just wanted to discuss required vs optional. There would be red boxes if there were any failed required results. the grey boxes are failed by optional
15:36:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: thats not the exact meaning i've seen in other groups.
15:36:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: they are MUST IF's so each of those
15:37:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: if i were looking at this naively, which i somewhat am, i would assume that inapplicable means that those don't apply to those classes of implementations, not optional
15:37:42 [sandro]
Just move all those columns to the right hand side, under a super-heading "OPTIONAL"
15:37:43 [csarven]
15:37:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: we borrowed the test outcomes from the w3c's EARL, which used those values
15:38:17 [tantek]
I don't doubt that the db schema behind this has been reasoned out, I'm talking purely about the presentation
15:38:31 [tantek]
If it was enough to confuse me and sandro, then it will likely confuse various AC reps ;)
15:38:40 [sandro]
15:39:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... the outher thing is that the reports that made it through are the ones that are passing. I know that many of them did have failing during some of these, but they submitted the reports once they were cleared up
15:39:04 [rhiaro]
q+ to see if we add MUST, SHOULD, MAY to the top of the columns that would make it obvious?
15:39:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: there is no question of that, this is about presentation, we trust what you did, but its about making it more presentable to those outside the group
15:39:39 [tantek]
rhiaro, yes, and I for one trust you and csarven to figure out such details
15:39:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven: we'll clear it up
15:39:47 [tantek]
thank you csarven
15:39:47 [rhiaro]
15:40:00 [sandro]
15:40:03 [csarven]
15:40:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i want to make sure that given that you have limited time, we get any process stuff done
15:40:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... okay i just cleared the queue, good for me :)
15:40:20 [rhiaro]
15:40:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: before we go to PR, we'd like to publish an updated CR with editorial changes
15:41:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we don't need to do an updated CR for changes that are clearly editorial
15:41:08 [tantek]
I for one am +1 on taking to PR pending editorial edits and presentational update to the implementation report
15:41:12 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: request transition of LDN to PR
15:41:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: okay, if we don't need to do that then i'm going to make the proposal for transition without qualification ...
15:42:19 [tantek]
+1 with editorial edits as requested by editors and presentational update to the implementation report to clarify MUST vs optional features, and clustering of implementations as editor, wg, outside wg.
15:42:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i'm looking at the closed issues, and I am seeing a number that are still 'waiting for commentor' and i want to make sure that those are changed to 'timeout' and we have made a good effort to contact them
15:42:27 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: request transition of LDN to PR with editorial updates
15:42:38 [rhiaro]
15:42:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... oh the latest one is sept 2nd, so we can definitely count those as timeout
15:42:42 [cwebber]
15:42:43 [tantek]
+1 with presentational update to the implementation report to clarify MUST vs optional features, and clustering of implementations as editor, wg, outside wg.
15:42:43 [aaronpk]
15:42:44 [csarven]
15:42:48 [bengo]
15:42:49 [eprodrom]
15:42:51 [sandro]
15:42:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: those changes being the acknowledgement sections
15:42:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: correct
15:43:04 [wilkie]
15:43:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
15:43:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: if you have a -1 to throw in, do it now
15:43:32 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: request transition of LDN to PR with editorial updates
15:43:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... or say you need more time
15:43:37 [sandro]
congratulations, csarven and rhiaro !
15:43:45 [tantek]
congrats csarven and rhiaro!
15:43:59 [aaronpk]
we need a soundtrack when things like this are approved
15:44:02 [tantek]
also thanks sandro for requesting clarifications on waiting for commenter issues
15:44:13 [csarven]
Thanks all!
15:44:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: thank you sarven for hanging on some extra time
15:44:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... any extra discussion around LDN before we move on?
15:44:26 [csarven]
Still around.. just with added 3 year old background-stuff
15:44:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: anything else we wanted to cover?
15:44:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think we are good
15:45:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: micropub
15:45:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we need to get some updates about the test suite
15:45:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: last week we screwed up a little bit, we did not verify that we had complete client tests before we took it to PR
15:45:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... despite the vote for going to PR, we didn't meet our standards for PR
15:47:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: since last call i worked really hard on adding client tests and now there are complete tests for client features on the site. and as you go through client tests on the site, it checks off the pieces in the report for you and gives you the text to insert into your report. this allows people to still submit manually if they want and the format didn't need to change at all
15:47:24 [tantek]
basically, do we now meet our standards for PR for micropub? and if so, we should re PROPOSED and re RESOLVED accordingly
15:47:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i have seen people using it, but no one has submitted a report using the tests yet as most submitted them by hand before that
15:47:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: have you been in contact with people to get a clue as to when they might do that?
15:48:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i have talked to a couple people but i havent' heard back yet on when
15:48:35 [tantek]
15:48:42 [tantek]
I think that was from before?
15:48:44 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
15:48:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i guess i'm a little bit confused on where we are, we voted to go to PR, there was some concern about client tests, what actionable for the group now?
15:49:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: do we need to reel back in our proposal?
15:50:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we did reel it back last week, since then we have fixed the missing implementation reports, i think what sandro was asking is do we have new reports since launching the client tests.
15:50:14 [dmitriz]
dmitriz has joined #social
15:50:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: we have not, mine did not change with the new tests, so the report is still the same
15:50:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: so have we heard of any changed reports since?
15:50:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: no
15:51:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: looks like shpub and micropublish are the two most complete besides yours, if we reached out to them and asked, that would be a good confirmation to me
15:52:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we could go with a proposal conditional that their clients return the same results with the test, that way we can move on automatically, if not then we have to reaccess it
15:52:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... thoughts?
15:52:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i feel like if we are going to be meeting again in a few weeks, then the 28th would be a good time to go to PR
15:53:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: ideally it should be simply a matter of a few days, not two weeks
15:53:42 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: requesting advancement of Micropub to PR conditioned on ...
15:53:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: it sounds like we have something along the (typing out proposal)
15:54:07 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: requesting advancement of Micropub to PR conditioned on confirmation of client implementations
15:54:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i'm trying to figure out where the bar is here
15:54:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... the strictest would be throw out all the ..
15:54:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
<ben_thatmustbeme> -1!
15:55:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i'm trying to figure out where else is rational to set the bar at
15:55:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: it seems reasonable to me
15:55:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: if you pitch it to them that it fills out everything for them
15:56:14 [tantek]
+1 with sandro's details of how to confirm client implementations
15:57:46 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: requesting advancement of Micropub to PR conditioned on confirmation of client implementations
15:57:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
ben_thatmustbeme: so are we throwing out all the implementation reports?
15:58:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think we are going with just shpub and micropublish in addition to aaronpk's implementation, and if there are any other issues with the test suite
15:58:35 [KevinMarks2]
KevinMarks2 has joined #social
15:58:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i picked those two because they cover most of it
15:58:45 [fabrixxm]
fabrixxm has joined #social
15:58:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: yes, i think those are good canaries
15:59:12 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Request Micropub -> PR when new complete test suite is reported passed by impls from editor, shpub, micropublish, and no one else reports problems
15:59:19 [tantek]
15:59:21 [cwebber]
15:59:23 [sandro]
15:59:28 [aaronpk]
15:59:32 [rhiaro]
15:59:34 [eprodrom]
15:59:39 [sandro]
(and reasonable effort is made to contact them)
15:59:57 [wilkie]
16:00:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
16:00:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: can we extend the meeting a bit?
16:00:31 [cwebber]
I can give a 2 minute AP update
16:00:33 [tantek]
+1 ok with extending meeting 30 min (not expecting it to take that long)
16:00:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we have a lot to cover still
16:00:45 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: Request Micropub -> PR when new complete test suite is reported passed by impls from editor, shpub, micropublish, and no one else reports problems
16:01:00 [cwebber]
I could do a meeting next week
16:01:05 [tantek]
congrats aaronpk on getting (re)resolved to take Micropub to PR!
16:01:08 [aaronpk]
16:01:23 [cwebber]
no objections
16:01:28 [julien]
For websub, I sent an email earlier today which we can maybe use as a basis for discussion over email? and I am ok to continue either way
16:01:35 [eprodrom]
15 minutes extension
16:01:48 [julien]
16:01:54 [sandro]
eprodrom: meeting extended 15 min
16:01:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: if there are no objections, i am going to unilaterally extend by 15 minutes
16:01:59 [tantek]
chair: tantek
16:02:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we resolved to take AS2 to PR 2 weeks ago, that was pending a draft update that would remove the set up features we did not have implmntations on, but they are all marked optional at risk
16:02:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: that updated draft is not ready but i should have something by the end of the week
16:03:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... the normative change was to remove those at-risk features that were lacking implementations.
16:04:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
.. the editorial was remove the 'at-risk' labels, and archive exit criteria and changelog
16:04:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... so next steps?
16:04:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we already resolved that, so we just need it to be updated, and that will get it to transition and published by next week
16:05:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: it depends on a couple people, if you get it to me by thursday, we should be able to publish by tuesday
16:05:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: if we get all our ducks in a row too, we could probably do LDN too
16:06:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: so we are aiming for tuesday for all 3 of these PRs
16:06:06 [rhiaro]
16:06:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: optimistically
16:06:18 [rhiaro]
the race is on
16:06:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: and we are not going to be holding any up, get your work done or you miss the tuesday train
16:06:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i'm assuming we haven't seen any new AS2 issues come up
16:06:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: yes, only editorial
16:07:16 [tantek]
chair: eprodrom
16:07:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: its not a huge deal if one misses it, but it would be nice to get all our PRs together
16:07:46 [cwebber]
AP will be very short
16:07:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: websub looks long, i wonder if we can postpone until next meeting?
16:07:54 [julien]
+1 (but read the mail I sent earlier today)
16:08:21 [cwebber]
that's fine
16:08:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: activitypub
16:08:48 [tantek]
link to that email?
16:09:01 [aaronpk]
16:09:01 [julien]
+1 sandro!
16:09:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: there was an email this morning that people should read and respond to
16:09:07 [tantek]
we really should put WebSub first (non-admin) then for the 2017-03-28
16:09:10 [julien]
looking forzward to see responses ;)
16:09:35 [tantek]
julien hoping you can make it on 2017-03-28!
16:10:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber: in short, i did merge bengo's implementation report template, i went through it an everything looks good, there is one small unresolved thing at the bottom i need to take care of. I hoped to tget the test suite by this call, but It has not happened. I have been working on it, but it is very complex and i have been a bit burned out. We have an implementation report but i should probably advertise that a bit better
16:11:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: can i get a quick few minutes on the CG issue
16:11:21 [sandro]
I also think it's dead
16:11:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i noticed that there was some spam coming in from W3C Social Business Community Group, it looks to be dead
16:12:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
can we request w3c close it and direct people to the new CG
16:12:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: sounds good, can you phrase it as a proposal?
16:12:24 [tantek]
PROPOSED: request that W3C Social Business Community Group be closed with a message inviting anyone there to join the W3C Social Web Community Group
16:12:34 [eprodrom]
16:12:44 [aaronpk]
16:12:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
16:12:54 [cwebber]
16:12:59 [sandro]
16:13:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
<ben_thatmustbeme> there are tons of dead CGs so the more dead ones closed, the better
16:13:19 [wilkie]
16:13:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i'll try to reach out to the chair too, but it sure looks like the group is dead
16:13:28 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: request that W3C Social Business Community Group be closed with a message inviting anyone there to join the W3C Social Web Community Group
16:13:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: and make it clear that if they do have stuff to work on they can do that in the social web CG
16:13:47 [julien]
16:14:03 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
16:14:03 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:14:03 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, julien, eprodrom, csarven, tantek, ben_thatmust, bengo, cwebber, sandro, wilkie, rhiaro, +
16:14:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:14:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:14:12 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:14:12 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
16:14:15 [wilkie]
thanks all!