15:02:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
15:02:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-social-irc
15:02:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:02:54 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
15:02:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
15:02:56 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:02:56 <tantek> present+
15:02:57 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
15:02:57 <trackbot> Date: 09 May 2017
15:02:58 <cwebber> present+
15:02:59 <ajordan> present_
15:03:04 <ajordan> present+
15:03:29 <sandro> present+
15:03:52 <tantek> present+ aaronpk
15:04:03 <cwebber> I can scribe
15:04:10 <cwebber> scribenick: cwebber
15:04:23 <ajordan> cwebber++
15:04:23 <Loqi> cwebber has 15 karma
15:04:24 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-02-minutes
15:04:29 <cwebber> tantek: ok, let's review and approve last week's minutes
15:04:52 <cwebber> +1
15:04:54 <eprodrom> eprodrom has joined #social
15:05:01 <eprodrom> present+
15:05:13 <tantek> +1
15:05:25 <eprodrom> +1
15:05:38 <sandro> +1
15:05:40 <ajordan> +1
15:05:46 <aaronpk> +1
15:05:58 <cwebber> RESOLVED: approved https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-02-minutes
15:06:09 <cwebber> tantek: next item: let's talk about the next telcon
15:06:39 <cwebber> tantek: we had proposals to do talks either every week or every two weeks
15:06:53 <cwebber> tantek: it made sense previously to do talks every week as opposed to every two weeks
15:06:55 <eprodrom> q+
15:07:06 <tantek> ack eprodrom
15:07:08 <cwebber> sandro: I'm thinking until we're caught up and run out of things to talk about on meetings we should probably be meeting every week
15:07:33 <cwebber> eprodrom: I just wanted to say I wonder to what extent this is dependent on the schedule for primarily ActivityPub, to some extent WebSub
15:07:52 <cwebber> eprodrom: I think we've talked a little bit about extending the group if possible, urgency possibly goes up or down depending on whether we do that
15:08:14 <cwebber> tantek: I agree, particularly in getting activitypub and websub in terms of checkmarks in terms of CR -> PR
15:08:36 <cwebber> tantek: to put it in a positive way, as long as we make normative changes we need to issue new CRs for or are updating the test suite, then we probably need to meet every week
15:08:40 <cwebber> tantek: is that similar to what you're saying?
15:08:44 <cwebber> eprodrom: yes that's exactly it
15:08:53 <cwebber> eprodrom: I'd hate to miss a deadline because we missed a meeting
15:09:13 <cwebber> tantek: it sounds like the chairs and staff contact are in pretty strong agreement.  if nobody objects I think we can make a call
15:09:23 <cwebber> aaronpk: I'm good with next week
15:09:34 <ajordan> cwebber: that was me
15:09:42 <aaronpk> haha i wasn't even dialed in yet
15:09:50 <Loqi> hahahaha
15:09:52 <cwebber> tantek: and part of this is we need to set expectations that we'll do weekly calls as long as there's no objections
15:09:54 <eprodrom> +1
15:10:05 <ajordan> +1
15:10:05 <aaronpk> +1 i'll be in UTC+2 next week tho
15:10:44 <cwebber> tantek: this isn't that big of a surprise anyway, we're basically moving back to our normal weekly telcon schedule until swe're confident with at least ActivityPub (and WebSub?) moving to PR
15:10:54 <cwebber> +1
15:11:07 <eprodrom> Yes
15:11:09 <eprodrom> All good
15:11:19 <cwebber> RESOLVED: we'll keep meeting as long as there's work to do on CR->PR on websub / AP
15:11:30 <tantek> s/meeting/meeting weekly
15:11:32 <cwebber> tantek: I believe AS2 and MicroPub end PR period on Thursday
15:11:49 <cwebber> tantek: so Amy and Sandro, any other news on PR vote on MiroPub?
15:12:00 <cwebber> tantek: and AS2
15:12:04 <tantek> s/MiroPub/AS2 & Micropub
15:12:26 <cwebber> sandro: Amy is still on her offline hiatus
15:12:29 <sandro> you can't hear me?
15:12:44 <eprodrom> I can hear everyone
15:12:44 <sandro> tantek we hear you
15:12:48 <cwebber> s
15:12:50 <sandro> but you cant hear us!
15:12:57 <eprodrom> I can hear Tantek and Aaron and Sandro
15:13:07 <eprodrom> I feel like this is a logic problem
15:13:07 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #social
15:13:24 <aaronpk> this is like my ham radio calls
15:14:37 <cwebber> sandro: summary is nothing has changed
15:15:04 <cwebber> tantek: in that case, I will reiterate my encouragement to all of you to reach out to your AC reps for all of you
15:15:15 <cwebber> tantek: and encourage them to at least support the specifications if not commit to implementing them
15:15:34 <cwebber> tantek: the more positive notes we can get the better.  but at least we have no objections
15:15:49 <cwebber> tantek: I'm postponing Post Type Discovery
15:15:58 <cwebber> TOPIC: websub
15:16:04 <cwebber> tantek: where are we with the test suite
15:16:10 <aaronpk> https://websub.rocks/subscriber
15:16:16 <cwebber> aaronpk: the test suite is very nearly done, subscriber tests are there
15:16:26 <cwebber> aaronpk: a nice list of all the test cases there
15:16:54 <cwebber> aaronpk: that's based on some of the github discussions that have happened.  fortunately it doesn't require any normative changes in the spec because it's just behavior that shoudl happen in terms of http
15:17:08 <cwebber> aaronpk: I'm in the middle of finishing the hubtests.  the two main ones are done
15:17:26 <cwebber> aaronpk: a basic subscription request, and there is a test for the signature (?)
15:17:50 <cwebber> aaronpk: some hubs are public, some are part of publishing software like mastodon, wordpress... so I basically had to make two different flows for starting those tests
15:18:10 <cwebber> aaronpk: yeah, those two are in place, I had to work on the edge cases
15:18:28 <cwebber> aaronpk: the one thing I didn't do in the tests in order to speed things up is I didn't do anything to make it store the results
15:19:35 <cwebber> aaronpk: I didn't do anything to have it store the results, so it's just a tool that helps you fill out the implementation report
15:19:43 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
15:19:53 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/websub/tree/master/implementation-reports
15:19:57 <cwebber> tantek: ok so that begs the question, is there an implementation report template that an implementer can fill out manually based on the results of the test suite they get
15:20:21 <cwebber> aaronpk: yep there's three of them, one for each role... the subscriber template is complete, and once I finish the hub test I'll have that
15:20:36 <cwebber> aaronpk: I wanted to avoid previous problem where someone filled out report without tests available
15:20:46 <cwebber> aaronpk: we have one for subscribers, will do for publishers
15:20:57 <cwebber> tantek: the sooner we can put out a call for people to fill it out the better
15:21:08 <cwebber> aaronpk: as soon as I do edge cases for publishers I can do taht
15:21:18 <cwebber> tantek: if we're ready for subscribers, we can ask that now
15:21:27 <cwebber> aaronpk: all I need to do is write the publisher report template
15:21:39 <cwebber> tantek: great, then we can get the pub and the sub of pubsubhubbub
15:21:47 <cwebber> tantek: when do you think this test suite for hubs will be completed
15:21:57 <cwebber> aaronpk: I'm hoping before next week, before the end of this week, it'll be done
15:22:04 <sandro> q+ to ask about testing 3rd parties
15:22:08 <cwebber> tantek: that includes implementation reports as well?
15:22:10 <cwebber> aaronpk: yep
15:22:18 <cwebber> tantek: sounds good, do we know of implementations that will pass them, or?
15:22:33 <cwebber> tantek: are we waiting more on "we have to find more implementations to document, encourage more implementing"
15:22:50 <cwebber> aaronpk: I've been testing with a few as I"ve been going, superfeedr already passes it, and mastodon is very close
15:23:05 <cwebber> aaronpk: I haven't tested as many subscribers because I don't know as many to test
15:23:29 <cwebber> tantek: do you know of at least two implementations of subscribers?
15:23:45 <cwebber> aaronpk: superfeedr is a subscriber but I haven't run it through tests as a subscriber yet
15:23:59 <cwebber> aaronpk: there's woodwind also, but I haven't seen the results of that yet
15:24:04 <cwebber> tantek: ok
15:24:06 <sandro> Curious if github.com passes as a publisher (+hub?).   It claims to implement PuSH.    https://developer.github.com/v3/repos/hooks/
15:24:16 <cwebber> tantek: any new issues needing group discussion for websub?
15:24:20 <cwebber> aaronpk: don't believe so
15:24:31 <cwebber> tantek: any editorial changes you need to publish as an updated CR?
15:24:34 <cwebber> aaronpk: not at the moment
15:24:42 <cwebber> sandro: we do have 4 uncategorized open issues
15:24:53 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
15:24:57 <cwebber> aaronpk: 97 is a discussion one intended to remain open until PR, don't know how to tag that
15:25:38 <cwebber> aaronpk: I think 98 could be resolved with some editorial language, 99 could be resolved as soon as implementation reports are in place, 102 is a question I had when I was implementing test suite, might not require any normative changes, wanted julian to weigh in
15:25:41 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/102
15:25:42 <Loqi> [aaronpk] #102 Why should subscribers return 2xx on invalid signatures?
15:26:08 <cwebber> aaronpk: 102 is when a hub delivers a notification that includes an incorrect signature, this is when it's expecting it to sign a notification
15:26:53 <cwebber> aaronpk: when a hub returns an incorrect signature, it still returns 200, but I was wondering why not 400 bad request but I don't have any way to test that without a different status code to read
15:27:14 <cwebber> aaronpk: ben pointed out that allowing the receiver to return 200 here allows processing here
15:27:25 <cwebber> aaronpk: that makes sense to me, do others have thoughts on other reasons to return 200?
15:28:00 <cwebber> sandro: I don't see ben's reason as a reason to say MUST, seems like a MAY.  Only MUST I can think of is if you think it's a security risk.  Given this is a human keyspace not a computer keyspace, I don'tt think guessing is a threat
15:28:12 <cwebber> aaronpk: the other thing I could see is the hub is going to treat a non-200 status code as an error
15:28:17 <cwebber> aaronpk: this may deactivate a subscription
15:28:37 <cwebber> aaronpk: this may be one reason, but at the point that a hub is incorrectly ??? a signature, I'm not sure that's a valid case it would get into
15:28:51 <cwebber> sandro: you'd want it to stop in this case I'd think.  My inclination is this should be a MAY
15:28:59 <cwebber> sandro: I agree this should at least be editorial
15:29:20 <cwebber> aaronpk: yeah I think it needed some explaination regardless of outcome, but I wanted Julian to chime in because he probably knew where it came from
15:29:33 <cwebber> tantek: could we have you at least propose some non-normative explanatory language?
15:29:41 <cwebber> aaronpk: not until I know more about why this was in here
15:29:52 <cwebber> tantek: I mean more the point about async from ben and sandro's point about reasoning for a MAY
15:30:02 <Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-09]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102952&oldid=102853
15:30:02 <cwebber> aaronpk: yeah I'd rather wait
15:30:07 <cwebber> tantek: ok we'll look again next week
15:30:16 <cwebber> tantek: could you ping julian again, aaronpk ?
15:30:27 <cwebber> aaronpk: yep... I am going to mark it as editorial since it will be some explaination
15:30:32 <cwebber> sandro: and if we change it to a MAY...
15:30:49 <cwebber> sandro: it's hard to see that as requiring a new CR because it's loosening conformance criteria
15:31:02 <cwebber> tantek: it's non-normative because it's loosening conformance requirements
15:31:10 <cwebber> tantek: I'd like to resolve it one way or another next week
15:31:26 <cwebber> tantek: in particular aaronpk I'd like you to figure out what you'd like to figure out what you'd like to do with this issue by next week
15:31:27 <cwebber> aaronpk: ok
15:31:44 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/98#issuecomment-293018649
15:31:45 <Loqi> [aaronpk] Upon further thought, the safest thing to do is the second approach I described.
15:31:45 <Loqi> * The old topic URL should send a redirect to the new topic URL. This will provide a seamless transition for any clients polling the topic URL.
15:31:45 <Loqi> * When the subscript...
15:31:51 <cwebber> aaronpk: ok I'd also like to quickly talk about issue 98.  I think we can get a resolution quickly
15:32:07 <cwebber> aaronpk: I realized if you followed HTTP you'd handle subscriptions automatically
15:32:16 <cwebber> aaronpk: doesn't require any special handling on the subscriber which is nice
15:32:32 <cwebber> aaronpk: I would like to add an informative section describing this situation so there's some guidance in the spec on how to migrate
15:32:34 <cwebber> tantek: ok
15:32:45 <cwebber> tantek: seems reasonable, what do people think
15:32:47 <cwebber> sandro: agreed
15:32:50 <eprodrom> +1
15:33:05 <cwebber> tantek: I think esp since it's editorial we can leave it to editor's discretion
15:33:07 <cwebber> aaronpk: ok
15:33:12 <cwebber> aaronpk: will write it up
15:33:34 <cwebber> tantek: write that up then why don't we accumulate any other editorial changes, if we're going to do a new CR with editorial changes let's do it next week instead of today
15:33:38 <cwebber> aaronpk: ok
15:33:53 <cwebber> aaronpk: we can publish new CR without restarting the process?
15:33:58 <cwebber> tantek: yes for editorial only changes
15:34:06 <cwebber> sandro: we did that with ActivityPub like 3 weeks ago
15:34:19 <cwebber> tantek: feelf ree to edit the editorial draft as usual
15:34:25 <cwebber> aaronpk: that covers everything
15:34:36 <cwebber> tantek: goal for next week is to resolve that issue and handle the CR
15:34:43 <eprodrom> I can scribe
15:34:51 <eprodrom> scribenick: eprodrom
15:34:52 <tantek> scribenick: eprodrom
15:34:58 <eprodrom> TOPIC: ActivityPub
15:35:12 <eprodrom> cwebber: NextCloud released a beta with AP support
15:35:52 <eprodrom> cwebber: leaving OAuth out of the test suite
15:35:58 <ajordan> q+
15:36:05 <eprodrom> cwebber: Not going to refactor, just going forward with current design
15:36:27 <eprodrom> cwebber: moved forward with CR2
15:36:38 <eprodrom> cwebber: 9 May 2017 CR
15:36:52 <eprodrom> q+
15:37:08 <cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/221
15:37:09 <Loqi> [sandhawke] #221 Controlling availability to search
15:37:22 <sandro> q-
15:37:45 <eprodrom> cwebber: A search engine was getting the public feeds on Mastodon and had some responses
15:37:59 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
15:38:00 <eprodrom> q+
15:38:44 <eprodrom> AUDIENCE
15:39:01 <sandro> q+ to clarify issue
15:39:02 <eprodrom> This is what audience targeting is for
15:39:11 <eprodrom> >:(
15:39:19 <tantek> or what an extension would be for
15:39:28 <sandro> "As I said above, I don't think a flag is the right way to address this issue."
15:39:32 <sandro> ***
15:39:32 <eprodrom> No, this is explicitly what audience targeting is for
15:40:07 <tantek> I see it as different but am listening
15:40:16 <tantek> q?
15:40:19 <tantek> ack eprodrom
15:41:10 <tantek> ack ajordan
15:41:31 <KevinMarks_> KevinMarks_ has joined #social
15:43:00 <tantek> eprodrom: are you able to minute this?
15:43:47 <tantek> ack sandro
15:43:47 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to clarify issue
15:43:51 <eprodrom> ajordan: did you check the Nextcloud implementation?
15:43:58 <eprodrom> cwebber: no, only saw mention
15:44:24 <eprodrom> ajordan: there seems to be a desire for fine-grained control, public-but-not-searchable
15:44:51 <tantek> q?
15:44:53 <eprodrom> sandro: question of flags not being sufficient
15:45:06 <eprodrom> sandro: the thread of 50-60 posts is worth reading through
15:45:09 <eprodrom> q+
15:45:43 <sandro> that thread is https://freeradical.zone/@Balor/146643
15:45:48 <Loqi> [Antoine Aflalo] Want a full text #search engine for toots?  Try: https://cler.ical.ist/ made by @vhf
15:47:20 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
15:47:24 <eprodrom> sandro: we will have CG discussions on systems besides SW specs
15:47:48 <eprodrom> cwebber: fine with extensions
15:48:04 <tantek> q?
15:48:27 <tantek> ack eprodrom
15:48:49 <ajordan> q+
15:49:26 <eprodrom> tantek: let's use extension routes for doing this
15:49:39 <eprodrom> tantek: should not need to block AP
15:49:53 <ajordan> q-
15:49:56 <tantek> q?
15:50:01 <eprodrom> eprodrom: we could use more well-known addresses for fine-grained public control (like PublicNotSearchable)
15:50:15 <cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/196
15:50:16 <Loqi> [annando] #196 How to differentiate between posts and private (direct) messages?
15:51:15 <tantek> q?
15:51:19 <eprodrom> q+
15:52:07 <tantek> ack pro
15:52:09 <tantek> ack
15:52:14 <tantek> ack next
15:55:18 <eprodrom> cwebber: we have deferred this without a solution
15:55:32 <eprodrom> eprodrom: I think we have a solution and the commenter is refusing to understand it
15:56:18 <eprodrom> tantek: we can add editorial guidance, and move on from there
15:56:31 <eprodrom> sandro: if we have more time, let's not close it
15:56:44 <eprodrom> tantek: where are we with the test suite?
15:56:50 <KevinMarks_> KevinMarks_ has joined #social
15:57:09 <eprodrom> TOPIC: rechartering
15:57:22 <eprodrom> cwebber, do you want to go back to scribing?
15:57:23 <cwebber> scribenick: cwebber
15:57:45 <eprodrom> cwebber, thanks sir
15:57:59 <cwebber> sandro: as we talked about it last week, we talked about an extension as well as a rechartering.  Extension is to take vastly increased enthusiasm and mastodon momentum in activitypub
15:58:23 <cwebber> sandro: twenty-two new user interfaces in the last month and half a million users seems to be plenty of reason to take more time
15:58:25 <cwebber> q+
15:58:34 <cwebber> sandro: and I'm fairly confident w3c will agree
15:58:59 <cwebber> tantek: the other observation last week is the release of miro? last week and their use of micropub and social apis
15:59:25 <cwebber> tantek: their whole area has been to do replies using webmention and vouch, so that was the other piece that would go into this extension or rechartering, but seems like another area
15:59:34 <cwebber> tantek: we have a spec and there's interest
15:59:46 <cwebber> sandro: do you have numbers to show that to be more than one person's project?
15:59:53 <cwebber> aaronpk: there's a lot of kickstarter backers
16:00:01 <aaronpk> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/manton/indie-microblogging-owning-your-short-form-writing/description 3080 backers
16:00:05 <cwebber> tantek: there's multiple implementations and the micro.blog stuff
16:00:16 <aaronpk> and lots of people building new micropub clients to talk to micro.blog
16:00:20 <eprodrom> q+
16:00:21 <cwebber> tantek: there's at least 3k people with accounts... not half a million, but that's a big jump
16:00:28 <aaronpk> anecdotal numbers since i've been watching their slack
16:00:31 <cwebber> sandro: yep the kickstarter is great.  I'll add that, I hadn't seen it
16:00:39 <cwebber> tantek: that's an argument for Vouch IMO
16:00:45 <cwebber> tantek: this is a momentum argument
16:00:51 <ajordan> we're at the hour
16:00:54 <cwebber> tantek: the other one to consider which has a weaker case is salmentions
16:01:09 <cwebber> tantek: the only reason to bring up is the SWAT0 which we've strongly agreed on
16:01:19 <cwebber> tantek: I'd like to try to get it in scope if we're doing a rechartering for that reason
16:01:28 <cwebber> tantek: we have multiple implementations using it
16:01:30 <tantek> q?
16:01:35 <cwebber> q-
16:01:40 <tantek> ack ep
16:02:00 <tantek> s/miro/micro.blog
16:02:50 <cwebber> eprodrom: yeah to me what I'd like to see is that we do as limited a rechartering as possible... take the things we already have going that may or may not be ready to close and get them closed.  for me and... I know cwebber does not agree.. but I think splitting up the mature part of activitypub of c2s go out and the s2s part which we're not sure we can test make that a second half
16:02:51 <cwebber> q+
16:03:00 <cwebber> eprodrom: split it into two things, see AP get finished
16:03:14 <sandro> q+ to clarify extension vs recharter
16:03:15 <cwebber> eprodrom: I think that might be a good way to suggest getting things done
16:03:28 <tantek> q?
16:03:28 <cwebber> eprodrom: we've already extended once, I worry we might not be able to get the whole part done
16:03:39 <ajordan> can whoever's chair ask if we can extend by 10 minutes?
16:03:39 <tantek> ack cwebber
16:03:44 <eprodrom> scribenick: eprodrom
16:03:56 <sandro> +1 <ajordan> can whoever's chair ask if we can extend by 10 minutes?
16:04:24 <eprodrom> cwebber: We have a simple way to do testing of s2s auth
16:04:35 <eprodrom> cwebber: we had the CG meeting last week, lot of enthusiasm
16:04:55 <eprodrom> cwebber: CG group wants to get AP finished
16:05:09 <eprodrom> cwebber: so that GNU Social and Mastodon gets caught up
16:05:11 <tantek> q?
16:05:24 <eprodrom> +1
16:05:25 <cwebber> scribenick: cwebber
16:05:25 <ajordan> +1
16:05:30 <cwebber> +1 to extending
16:05:30 <sandro> +1 extending 15min
16:05:31 <aaronpk> +1
16:05:41 <cwebber> tantek: ok we're extended to 9:15
16:05:43 <tantek> ack sandro
16:05:43 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to clarify extension vs recharter
16:05:59 <cwebber> sandro: to clarify the process, extending is what we did in December, and what I'm suggesting we do now
16:06:33 <cwebber> sandro: it's basically a w3c management decision saying this group is doing ok, and it doesn't involve moving to the advisory committee or change scope.  it might involve agreement that it goes to this narrow thing, but it's relatively straightforward
16:07:05 <cwebber> sandro: my expectation is that if things are picking up the way things are going, we might want to recharter, which might mean some people come and go, but a rechartering makes sense (it would mean 20 members get on board)
16:07:13 <tantek> q?
16:07:14 <cwebber> sandro: but those are very separate things between rechartering and extension
16:07:38 <cwebber> sandro: if we get the extension to weave mastodon into the fold, would it make sense to weave in vouch and salmentions?
16:07:46 <cwebber> tantek: the other way to frame those if you want is iterating on webmention
16:08:09 <cwebber> tantek: these are the extensions we've iterated on since the rec and I think that's grey area enough to ask what your comfort level is
16:08:12 <cwebber> sandro: I will put that on the agenda
16:08:26 <cwebber> tantek: the sort-of-obvious thing is I haven't had time to do updates on Post Type Discovery
16:08:40 <cwebber> sandro: I don't think we'd need to say a "limited extension", we'd leave our hands not particularly tied
16:08:42 <tantek> q?
16:08:47 <cwebber> sandro: at which case we have a continuing chartter
16:09:09 <cwebber> tantek: I want to address eprodrom, he was addressing potential c2s and s2s separation
16:09:25 <cwebber> tantek: while I don't disagree on maturity, from extension or rechartering it makes sense to keep both
16:09:30 <cwebber> tantek: I would rather not tie our hands
16:09:57 <cwebber> tantek: as long as it doesn't put a risk of us not being able to put on them
16:10:02 <cwebber> sandro: I don't think so
16:10:25 <eprodrom> I don't think we need to
16:10:26 <cwebber> tantek: any idea on time?
16:10:42 <cwebber> sandro: I feel like 6 months is the best compromise.  we could maybe ask for 3 months
16:10:43 <cwebber> q+
16:10:45 <eprodrom> I like to ship
16:10:49 <cwebber> tantek: I think that's wise to increase the runway
16:10:55 <tantek> ack cwebber
16:11:01 <sandro> +1 shipping!
16:11:06 <ajordan> q+
16:11:07 <tantek> q+ to note something about maintenance
16:12:22 <cwebber> +1 on shipping also :)
16:12:34 <eprodrom> cwebber, is there an issue for that?
16:12:38 <tantek> q?
16:12:40 <cwebber> eprodrom, there is
16:12:41 <eprodrom> I'm happy to talk to that problem
16:12:44 <tantek> ack ajordan
16:12:56 <cwebber> cwebber: mastodon very specifically wanted clarity on webfinger
16:13:01 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
16:13:10 <cwebber> tantek: we want to avoid starting a new fight on that though
16:13:19 <cwebber> ajordan: should we ask for 3-6 months?
16:13:20 <tantek> q?
16:13:23 <tantek> ack tantek
16:13:23 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note something about maintenance
16:13:27 <cwebber> sandro: best to not be wishy washy and just clear about what we want
16:13:51 <cwebber> tantek: the other point raised to me in other capacity is increasing desire from w3c management for working groups to do maintenance of their specs including folding in erratta etc
16:14:00 <cwebber> tantek: esp if you spec is being close to being done etc
16:14:05 <cwebber> tantek: normative fixes etc
16:14:12 <cwebber> tantek: so you could see a .rev etc
16:14:31 <cwebber> tantek: this is something to consider for everything that we're doing
16:14:48 <cwebber> tantek: from my understanding the w3c management *wants* to hear on how we are doing maintenance
16:15:02 <cwebber> sandro: seems to me pretty clear given our CG plan that we have a pretty good plan there
16:15:18 <cwebber> sandro: I'm assuming aaron and chris are willing to maintain the specs they've edited
16:15:43 <cwebber> tantek: first half is getting eratta edited and done in there, second half is getting them published as official w3c docs with IP protection, etc
16:15:50 <cwebber> tantek: my understanding is they'd like to see that in a WG
16:15:54 <cwebber> sandro: when we get to that, yes
16:16:02 <ajordan> eprodrom: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/194 is the Webfinger issue from a couple minutes ago
16:16:02 <sandro> q?
16:16:03 <Loqi> [cwebber] #194 Include informative section suggesting how WebFinger users can migrate towards ActivityPub adoption?
16:16:08 <cwebber> q+ just to mention next CG call
16:16:13 <cwebber> q- just
16:16:22 <cwebber> q+ to just mention next CG call before this call ends
16:16:27 <tantek> q?
16:16:31 <tantek> ack cwebber
16:16:31 <Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to just mention next CG call before this call ends
16:18:35 <aaronpk> swicg pronounced "sink"
16:18:41 <tantek> q?
16:19:40 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
16:20:00 <cwebber> PROPOSED: Extend for 6 months to incorporate increased developer feedback
16:20:01 <ajordan> +1
16:20:07 <sandro> +1
16:20:07 <cwebber> +1
16:20:23 <aaronpk> +1
16:20:26 <tantek> Zakim, who is here?
16:20:26 <Zakim> Present: tantek, cwebber, ajordan, sandro, aaronpk, eprodrom
16:20:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see KevinMarks, eprodrom, Zakim, RRSAgent, tantek, timbl, bwn, JanKusanagi, MMN-o, Gargron, mattl, ajordan, wilkie, DenSchub, cwebber, trackbot, ben_thatmustbeme, csarven,
16:20:28 <Zakim> ... nightpool, raucao, jet, bigbluehat, KjetilK, dwhly, sandro, bitbear, aaronpk, lambadalambda, Loqi
16:20:31 <KevinMarks_> KevinMarks_ has joined #social
16:20:34 <eprodrom> +1
16:20:42 <tantek> +1
16:20:52 <cwebber> RESOLVED: Extend for 6 months to incorporate increased developer feedback
16:21:02 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer
16:21:02 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-social-irc#T16-21-02
16:21:37 <cwebber> tantek: in that case I want to plant a seed in peoples' heads for face to face possibilities
16:21:41 <cwebber> tantek: maybe we can talk next week
16:21:50 <cwebber> tantek: in particular put down on your calendars the TPAC meeting
16:22:02 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2017
16:22:25 <cwebber> tantek: see you all next tuesday!
16:22:29 <eprodrom> Thanks tantek !
16:22:34 <eprodrom> Thanks cwebber for scribing!
16:22:38 <tantek> cwebber++ for scribing!
16:22:38 <Loqi> cwebber has 16 karma
16:22:44 <ajordan> cwebber++ (again)
16:22:45 <Loqi> cwebber has 17 karma
16:23:07 <tantek> trackbot, end meeting
16:23:07 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:23:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been tantek, cwebber, ajordan, sandro, aaronpk, eprodrom
16:23:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:23:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-social-minutes.html trackbot