15:09:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
15:09:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/31-social-irc
15:09:30 <sandro> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:09:35 <nightpool> Just to sum up what's happened so far in mumble, we're going to start the meeting
15:09:42 <aaronpk> trackbot, start meeting
15:09:43 <nightpool> Sandro called cwebber2, but got voicemail
15:09:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:09:45 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
15:09:46 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
15:09:46 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:09:47 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
15:09:47 <trackbot> Date: 31 May 2017
15:10:01 <Loqi> Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/AccountDiscovery]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=103077&oldid=102999
15:10:06 <nightpool> I think someone needs to scribenick me?
15:10:08 <aaronpk> https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2017-05-31
15:10:09 <sandro> Meeting: Social Web COMMUNITY Group Teleconference
15:10:11 <aaronpk> scribenick: nightpool
15:10:27 <sandro> present+
15:10:27 <ajordan> present+
15:10:29 <MMN-work> present+
15:10:29 <aaronpk> present+
15:10:33 <nightpool> present+
15:10:36 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+
15:10:39 <nightpool> (thanks ben_thatmustbeme)
15:10:51 <jaywink> present+
15:10:58 <aaronpk> TOPIC: SocialWG
15:11:13 <nightpool> sandro: The Social Web Working Group hasn't had any particular changes from last week, still working on ActivityPub and WebSub.
15:11:38 <nightpool> sandro: w3c advisory committee is still voting on whether to extend the SWWG charter
15:11:50 <nightpool> sandro: To work on activitypub for longer, given recent interest
15:12:07 <nightpool> sandro: may turn into community spec if charter doesn't get extended
15:12:12 <aaronpk> https://aaronparecki.com/2017/05/30/1/w3c-micropub
15:12:15 <Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Micropub is a W3C Recommendation
15:12:33 <nightpool> aaronpk: micropub has turned into a reccomendation since last week
15:13:03 <nightpool> aaronpk: the websub testsuite is up to date, and at websub.rocks
15:13:27 <nightpool> aaronpk: we're looking for implementation reports, especially from people running current websub impls
15:13:33 <nightpool> aaronpk: like mastodon, etc.
15:13:38 <aaronpk> details here https://websub.rocks/
15:13:57 <timbl> timbl has joined #social
15:13:59 <aaronpk> https://www.w3.org/TR/websub/#change-log
15:15:12 <nightpool> nightpool: how many changes have their been to websub since PuSH?
15:15:22 <nightpool> aaronpk: not many, we're aiming for compatability
15:15:26 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/106
15:15:26 <Loqi> [Alkarex] #106 Suggestion: Use HTTP 410 Gone
15:15:30 <nightpool> aaronpk: there's a changelog section in the guide.
15:15:34 <nightpool> s/guide/spec
15:16:07 <nightpool> aaronpk: we're looking at implementing the above issue
15:16:09 <MMN-work> Good addition to the websub spec!
15:16:20 <nightpool> aaronpk: because implmentations are doing it
15:16:32 <nightpool> aaronpk: and it doesn't break interoperability with existing hubs
15:17:06 <nightpool> (thanks!)
15:17:17 <sandro> https://github.com/swicg/general/issues/4
15:17:18 <Loqi> [sandhawke] #4 Forwarding
15:17:19 <nightpool> TOPIC: GH issue #4 - Forwarding
15:17:49 <nightpool> sandro: there's been a longstanding question in decentralized systems: what do you do when a server goes down?
15:18:09 <nightpool> sandro: issue #1 talks about this a bit, and there's a lot of discussion there
15:18:30 <nightpool> sandro: but when I was looking at setting up a w3c mastodon instance, and talking to the systems people
15:18:56 <nightpool> sandro: they said that they didn't want to run mastodon, because eventually they would to shut it down, and users would be stranded
15:19:13 <nightpool> sandro: But they'd be willing to run a forwarding server, and that seems to be the majority usecase
15:19:21 <nightpool> sandro: where people want to shut things down orderly, do sunsets
15:19:32 <aaronpk> websub section on redirects: https://w3c.github.io/websub/#subscription-migration
15:19:46 <nightpool> sandro: But I wanted to make sure that we talked about it in the spec, and look into what current implementations do for redirects
15:19:58 <nightpool> sandro: and behave gracefully in allowing users to move to different sites
15:20:02 <Loqi> Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/AccountDiscovery]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=103078&oldid=103077
15:20:22 <nightpool> aaronpk: what's the goal for this call?
15:20:31 <nightpool> sandro: experience, mostly, looking at what people have tried
15:20:36 <nightpool> sandro: or other feedback
15:20:48 <cwebber2> oh shoot
15:20:53 <cwebber2> I thought it was in 40 mins
15:20:58 <sandro> nightpool: I'm worried about the longevity of these redirect servers
15:20:59 <MMN-work> q+ to discuss redirect and URI stuff
15:22:30 <aaronpk> ack MMN-work
15:22:30 <Zakim> MMN-work, you wanted to discuss redirect and URI stuff
15:22:43 <nightpool> sandro: I agree that's a concern, but I think that if you're being responsibile, you need to do redirects in perpetuity
15:23:02 <astronouth7303> present+
15:23:02 <nightpool> sandro: URLs get printed in books, etc
15:23:10 <ajordan> heya cwebber2!
15:23:23 <cwebber2> hi
15:23:31 <nightpool> MMN-work: when you do redirects for your URLs, you still have to have an identifier, and you still have to have local databases
15:24:01 <nightpool> MMN-work: and you have to figure out what to change in the local database
15:24:03 <Denise_Henley__> Denise_Henley__ has joined #social
15:24:28 <nightpool> sandro: right, the question here is "when do you consider this permanent", and when do you change your users URL
15:24:34 <MMN-work> The point I was trying to get across was that when you move servers the URL/URI for that account stored with other servers is going to have to be updated - if the URI is supposed to be a fully functional URL
15:24:39 <ajordan> q+ to clarify
15:24:48 <aaronpk> ack ajordan
15:24:48 <Zakim> ajordan, you wanted to clarify
15:24:51 <jaywink> from experience in the diaspora world for some years I would guess typically server admins who shut down their pod want to shut down evrything, not run a service after that. And many times the server just disappears of the grid without warning.
15:25:01 <nightpool> sandro: Gargron brought this up, that's he's worried about user account hijacking
15:25:12 <cwebber2> q+
15:25:25 <aaronpk> ack cwebber2
15:25:58 <nightpool> cwebber2: I'm sympathetic to this, although I feel like once you have access to somebodies account you have lots of opportunities to do damage
15:26:51 <nightpool> ajordan: I think the problem here is that most things you mentioned can be undone, you can undo side-effects, undelete post, etc.
15:27:01 <MMN-work> nightpool++
15:27:01 <Loqi> nightpool has 1 karma
15:27:10 <MMN-work> good summary of my rambling :)
15:27:18 <nightpool> ajordan: but once you've been redirected to another server, there's no way to tell that server to "unredirect" you
15:27:47 <cwebber2> q+
15:27:56 <nightpool> aaronpk: there's a non-technical solution for this too, and a post like "hey, i'm leaving X domain, go find me on this domain instead"
15:27:57 <ajordan> q+
15:28:05 <aaronpk> q?
15:28:08 <aaronpk> ack cwebber2
15:28:23 <nightpool> aaronpk: and that only works while the servers up, but I'm reluctent to push a technical solution when a solution exists anyway
15:29:06 <nightpool> cwebber2: this comes out of solutions like that--both on push.io and on mastodon, I've seen lots of people leave messages like that, which basically imitate the behavior we have here
15:29:17 <sandro> ack ajordan
15:29:20 <nightpool> cwebber2: but you're right, people do work around it at the moment
15:29:23 <cwebber2> ack cwebber
15:29:43 <sandro> +1 make this work for non-human systems!
15:29:53 <nightpool> ajordan: I may be architecture astronauting, but I think it's really cool how standards have interpo with non-technical systems
15:29:57 <aaronpk> q?
15:30:09 <nightpool> s/interpo/interop
15:30:27 <nightpool> ajordan: but if you ??? you'll break interop
15:30:34 <ben_thatmustbeme> s/push.io/pump.io/
15:30:48 <MMN-work> aaronpk & sandro: I'm a proponent of making social systems requiring social interactions, including some things that are "too manual" .)
15:31:00 <nightpool> sandro: Am I hearing any disagreement? Or do most people think that systems should handle redirects cleanly?
15:31:14 <ajordan> s/???/go with the nontechnical solution of "post a note saying you've moved"/
15:31:38 <nightpool> nightpool: I think the 30 day heuristic aliviates my concerns
15:31:54 <nightpool> cwebber2: appologies about missing the time
15:32:02 <MMN-work> maloki?
15:32:04 <MMN-work> Marie
15:32:29 <nightpool> TOPIC: Using Discourse for activitypub
15:33:04 <nightpool> cwebber2: Maloki and Gargron brought up hosting a activitypub category on the mastodon discourse forum
15:33:11 <ajordan> q+
15:33:31 <MMN-work> cwebber2: I am text-only todat
15:33:32 <nightpool> cwebber2: I know that there's some existing people who don't feel comfortable using Github
15:33:32 <MMN-work> today*
15:33:50 <MMN-work> You can continue discussing
15:33:53 <MMN-work> and I'll write something up
15:34:01 <nightpool> cwebber2: And this could provide an alternative, although we would have to talk about bridging convos back and forth
15:34:11 <cwebber2> ack ajordan
15:34:44 <nightpool> ajordan: chris I'm definitely with you on fragmented conversations, I find most things beside issue trackers hard to use
15:35:04 <nightpool> ajordan: Is there a compelling reason to keep tracking for this group on Github, rather then switching to something like Gitlab?
15:35:14 <nightpool> ajordan: Because that seems like it would solve both problems.
15:36:08 <jaywink> +1 on that, fragmentation would make following discussions harder
15:36:14 <nightpool> cwebber2: this came up in the working group. The problems raised is that many people on the working group used Github, and they would have to create another account (federated identities...)
15:36:30 <ajordan> q+
15:36:35 <nightpool> cwebber2: and the w3c has some amount of tooling around it, although that's unclear at this point
15:36:38 <cwebber2> https://discourse.joinmastodon.org/t/solved-1-4-rc3-error-compiling-webpacker-assets/223
15:36:50 <nightpool> sandro: I'm not aware of any tooling, although I might be missing something?
15:37:01 <nightpool> ???: I think it has to do with backing things up for legal purposes
15:37:17 <aaronpk> s/???:/aaronpk:
15:37:28 <nightpool> sandro: But we're not under the w3 org, so that wouldn't help us really much anyway
15:37:38 <sandro> q+
15:37:49 <nightpool> cwebber2: Discourse does seem to walk a line between issue trackers and traditional forum software
15:37:52 <ajordan> ack ajordan
15:38:08 <nightpool> cwebber2: allows closing/resolving threads, etc.
15:38:34 <nightpool> ajordan: as another note, gitlab has a "sign in with github" button, which may alleviate conerns about additional accounts?
15:38:53 <nightpool> sandro: I just tried using Discourse this morning, I had never used it before and I liked it.
15:39:13 <nightpool> sandro: I liked the forwarding discussion I saw there, and I linked one way but should like the other way
15:39:22 <ajordan> sandro++
15:39:22 <Loqi> sandro has 41 karma in this channel (48 overall)
15:39:40 <nightpool> sandro: If the idea here is to use Mastodon's discourse installation, would other projects feel excluded?
15:39:57 <nightpool> cwebber2: It might be, I don't know. We would have to ask
15:40:01 <ben_thatmustbeme> we need to make our own decentralized social system so we can design a decentralized social system
15:40:22 <nightpool> cwebber2: I wouldn't feel that about my own projects, but I know that there might be some concerns there, and we would have to hear from other people
15:40:28 <ajordan> q+
15:40:42 <nightpool> cwebber2: another concern is what happens to our discussions if their installation goes down
15:41:08 <aaronpk> q?
15:41:11 <nightpool> cwebber2: And that's a concern for Github as well, big services (such as google code) have gone down in the past
15:41:21 <MMN-work> I'll paste this:
15:41:37 <MMN-work> I am personally not using GitHub because I cannot accept their TOS. I agree that using a separate discussion forum is much work (and I'm probably the only one currently to actively avoid GitHub).
15:41:41 <aaronpk> ack ajordan
15:41:45 <aaronpk> q=
15:41:49 <aaronpk> queue=
15:41:58 <astronouth7303> q+
15:42:03 <saranix> MMN-work: I actively avoid github too
15:42:03 <MMN-work> Suddenly GitHub (or whatever third party we host through) could change TOS, forbid a certain participant to log in because of actions in some _other_ repository etc.
15:42:14 <MMN-work> The bottom line is I don't think it should be hosted on a domain not controlled by the community of SWICG. Also "multiple accounts" is very little an issue if the tool used has third party logins (OpenID/OAuth)
15:42:16 <jaywink> so could mastodon ;)
15:42:47 <nightpool> ajordan: I think my main concern is about how other people perceive this, we know that we just "happen" to be there, but the average observer would not
15:43:28 <nightpool> ajordan: so I'm a tenative -1 between backup concerns and that.
15:43:37 <MMN-work> cwebber2++
15:43:37 <Loqi> cwebber2 has 85 karma
15:43:41 <saranix> agree should be hosted under w3 control. Also agree with bad optics of Mastodon, even if control wasn't an issue. optics being that they are very silicon valley hipster of the day
15:43:57 <nightpool> sandro: does gitlab solve this problem? or would we have to have an installation of gitlab or an installation of discourse somewhere else?
15:44:14 <sandro> MMN-work, would you be fine with gitlab.com ?
15:44:28 <nightpool> ajordan: I think gitlab.com would solve these problems?
15:44:56 <nightpool> aaronpk: gitlab.com seems like it would just be moving to another 3rd party service, which doesn't solve the conerns MMN-work raised.
15:45:27 <astronouth7303> aaronpk: gitlab can be self-hosted for free. It's FOSS+Premium.
15:45:30 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
15:45:32 <nightpool> sandro: I can't find evidence of it right now, but I think MIT may have a gitlab hosting thing? Which we may be able to use, given that w3c is somewhat part of MIT?
15:45:37 <aaronpk> astronouth7303, i know, that's not my point
15:45:41 <ajordan> an sorry I just read MMN-work's comment again, I missed a bit
15:45:48 <MMN-work> sandro aaronpk: Currently GitLab hosts git.gnu.io for us, so if we had a domain name to use I'm sure they could take care of the hosting part
15:45:55 <nightpool> sandro: i would prefer it be w3c branded, but that may be another option
15:46:10 <MMN-work> sandro aaronpk: us = GNU social
15:46:20 <nightpool> cwebber2: It sounds like we don't want to use discourse, and we can continue this conversation on better venus later.
15:46:24 <nightpool> s/venus/venues
15:46:32 <astronouth7303> q-
15:46:58 <nightpool> aaronpk: we can continue this discussion on IRC or other forums.
15:47:06 <sandro> MMN-work, okay, that sounds like a good option.
15:47:27 <nightpool> cwebber2: we have a little bit less people here then usual, do we want to get this shortname thing over with or postpone for another week?
15:47:52 <nightpool> TOPIC: shortnaming
15:48:14 <nightpool> aaronpk: naming is always a rabbithole, I would consider punting
15:48:41 <tantek> good morning #social!
15:48:41 <nightpool> cwebber2: we can do this discussion async
15:48:57 <nightpool> sandro: let's poll the channel on consensus for the name
15:48:59 <tantek> I see I made it just in time for the fun part ;)
15:49:03 <nightpool> sandro: and maybe we can set it aside quickly
15:49:13 <ajordan> morning tantek
15:49:25 <saranix> shortnaming?
15:49:30 <nightpool> cwebber2: okay, 1 minute summary: our full name is set in stone, but we're considering two options for the short name
15:49:56 <tantek> here's the big question? which one has a twitter account available? :P
15:50:03 <nightpool> cwebber2: one option is SWICG, which is hard to pronounce but keeps the "incubator" and "web" aspects, which may be important to you
15:50:04 <sandro> I strongly prefer "SocialCG" to "SWICG" because (1) easier to say (2) easier to guess what it means, (3) less likely to mean something else (semantic web?)
15:50:26 <nightpool> cwebber2: the other option is SocialCG, because it's more pronouncable and implies more continuity with SocialWG
15:50:38 <nightpool> cwebber2: and we mention the incubator and web aspects on the wiki page heavily
15:50:39 <MMN-work> tantek: No problem, we could register TheReal$shortname
15:50:47 <tantek> note: the WG has commonly been referred to as both SWWG and SocialWG and it doesn't seem to be confusing anyone
15:50:54 <tantek> re: that semweb comment sandro
15:51:14 <nightpool> aaronpk: Just to mention where this would be used--it's the namespace for the wiki page, it's the account for social media, and on the w3 url for the group.
15:51:18 <tantek> so maybe we don't have to pick?
15:51:20 <ajordan> SocialCG++
15:51:20 <Loqi> socialcg has 1 karma
15:51:20 <cwebber2> SocialCG
15:51:20 <sandro> SocialCG
15:51:21 <MMN-work> SWICG
15:51:25 <jaywink> +1 SocialCG
15:51:26 <nightpool> SocialCG
15:51:31 <tantek> SWICG++
15:51:31 <Loqi> swicg has 1 karma
15:51:36 <aaronpk> well we need to pick one to use consistently in URLs at least
15:51:42 <MMN-work> (don't really mind though)
15:51:53 <tantek> yeah same.
15:52:01 <geppy> geppy has joined #social
15:52:08 <geppy> Sorry I'm late.
15:52:24 <tantek> for the wiki I have to admit /Socialcg has a certain parallelism with /Socialwg
15:52:39 <ajordan> we seem to be evenly divided
15:52:41 <ajordan> excellent
15:52:45 <rhiaro> +1 SocialCG
15:52:45 <geppy> + SocialCG
15:52:45 <ben_thatmustbeme> SWICG++
15:52:45 <Loqi> swicg has 2 karma
15:52:53 <tantek> like I said, maybe we don't have to choose to only have one
15:53:05 <saranix> SWICG++
15:53:05 <Loqi> swicg has 3 karma
15:53:09 <ajordan> tantek++
15:53:09 <Loqi> tantek has 57 karma in this channel (345 overall)
15:53:10 <sandro> 7-2 right?
15:53:15 <sandro> now 7-3
15:53:20 <astronouth7303> +1 SocialCG, if only because it looks wordish, not just a jumble of letters.
15:53:24 <tantek> !karma SocialCG
15:53:24 <Loqi> socialcg has 1 karma
15:53:31 <sandro> 8-3
15:53:32 <tantek> !karma SWICG
15:53:32 <Loqi> swicg has 3 karma
15:53:35 <rhiaro> SocialCG++
15:53:35 <Loqi> too much karma!
15:53:39 <tantek> lol
15:53:50 <aaronpk> lol karma votes don't work cause rate limiting
15:53:51 <nightpool> cwebber2: Looks like 8-3, which isn't a complete landslide victory, and it doesn't capture everybody
15:53:58 <nightpool> cwebber2: but it does seem to be the leaning here
15:54:10 <nightpool> sandro: that's what we're currently using on the wiki, right?
15:54:29 <ajordan> I count 4 for SWICG
15:54:40 <nightpool> (rhiaro, sorry, that was my fault: cwebber called for votes but I didn't transcribe that part)
15:54:57 <nightpool> cwebber2: this feels extremely bikesheddy, and we do need to choose one
15:55:09 <sandro> I might be upset with swicg -- feels like bad branding
15:55:11 <tantek> I prefer SWICG in for branding/comms in general. I am OK with w3.org/wiki/Socialcg as a parallel to w3.org/wiki/Socialwg (and /Socialig FWIW)
15:55:11 <nightpool> cwebber2: does anyone feel strongly that they would be upset if one of these was chosen?
15:55:17 <geppy> I'm fine with SWICG being used for the wiki or whatever, and I'm fine with CWICG being used, but I feel like it's clearer especially to outsiders if I talk about SocialCG
15:55:54 <ajordan> +1 to remark about talking to outsiders
15:56:01 <nightpool> cwebber2: we're seeing some preferences, and maybe some strong preferences
15:56:16 <nightpool> cwebber2: and it looks like we might not be in trouble from the people here if we choose socialcg
15:56:32 <tantek> we have @SocialWebWG right?
15:56:32 <nightpool> cwebber2: we might want to throw this out to the rest of the world, or decide on this once and for all here
15:56:39 <tantek> did someone register @SocialWebCG ?
15:56:48 <saranix> could go both ways when talking to outsiders. They could get confused about diff between CG and WG, also could be missing the Incubator and Web apsects. OTOH, SWICG is opaque at first glance as well.
15:56:48 <tantek> again, parallelism in context
15:56:54 <nightpool> cwebber2: aaronpk do you have a preference whether we decide now or not?
15:57:12 <nightpool> aaronpk: I see arguments for both sides, but we should probably close this discussion sooner rather then later
15:57:27 <nightpool> cwebber2: should we do a resolution?
15:57:29 <tantek> cwebber2, what about narrowing the decision to just the wiki path?
15:57:38 <tantek> rather than a general bikeshed discussion?
15:57:40 <nightpool> sandro: that would be nice
15:57:46 <nightpool> s/nice/useful/
15:58:02 <cwebber2> PROPOSED: Accept majority of straw poll as SocialCG for group shortname.
15:58:06 <cwebber2> +1
15:58:08 <sandro> +1
15:58:08 <ajordan> +1
15:58:13 <nightpool> +1
15:58:13 <geppy> +1
15:58:19 <MMN-work> +0
15:58:23 <jaywink> +1
15:58:30 <MMN-work> That's how you do it right? .)
15:58:43 <geppy> tantek: Someone registered @SocialWebCG on Twitter in May of 2017, I'm guessing that means right now someone here grabbed it.
15:58:55 <MMN-work> Cool, thanks for the explanation.
15:58:59 <astronouth7303> +1
15:59:02 <sandro> yeah +0 is don't care, but leaning yes, -0 is don't want to stop things but don't feel great, -1 mean STOP
15:59:09 <tantek> -0
15:59:09 <aaronpk> +0
15:59:23 <ben_thatmustbeme> 0
15:59:28 <saranix> -0
15:59:47 <nightpool> cwebber2: we don't have any -1s, and we did do this based off of the poll
15:59:59 <cwebber2> RESOLVED: Accept majority of straw poll as SocialCG for group shortname.
16:00:02 <nightpool> cwebber2: it's a mix of positive and wishywashy, so I feel we can probably close this
16:00:08 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
16:00:08 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2017/05/31-social-irc#T16-00-08
16:00:23 <nightpool> aaronpk: we are at the top of the hour, and that's the end of our scheduled time
16:00:48 <nightpool> aaronpk: we still have three or four things on the agenda
16:00:57 <nightpool> aaronpk: but we can probably wait until next week?
16:01:00 <MMN-work> agreed
16:01:03 <nightpool> cwebber2: yes, meetings are weekly now
16:01:23 <nightpool> aaronpk: everyone is welcome to continue chatting on IRC or on the call, it just won't be part of the official minutes
16:01:45 <geppy> Thanks, all, sorry I missed everything.
16:01:46 <nightpool> cwebber2: we oficially finished painting a bikeshed!
16:01:48 <ben_thatmustbeme> nightpool++ for minuting
16:01:48 <Loqi> nightpool has 2 karma
16:02:05 <cwebber2> geppy: np, it happens!  I missed the first 20 minutes too, and I scheduled it... oops.
16:02:35 <nightpool> do I do generate minutes, or should someone else?
16:02:45 <aaronpk> trackbot, end meeting
16:02:45 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:02:45 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been sandro, ajordan, MMN-work, aaronpk, nightpool, ben_thatmustbeme, jaywink, astronouth, SocialCG
16:02:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/31-social-minutes.html trackbot
16:02:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:02:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:02:57 <aaronpk> agenda for next week is up https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2017-06-07
16:18:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
16:18:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/31-social-irc
16:18:43 <sandro> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:18:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/31-social-minutes.html sandro
16:18:53 <aaronpk> I run a gogs instance for myself, which I really like because of how easy it is to run and maintain
16:19:01 <sandro> done
16:19:05 <cwebber2> there we go
16:19:08 <cwebber2> thanx sandro
16:19:09 <ajordan> uh
16:19:35 <astronouth7303> gogs vs gitlab depends on features. Gogs is simple, but gitlab has soooo much more
16:19:36 <aaronpk> i would be happy to host a gogs instance for the socialcg, but i would not volunteer to host gitlab
16:19:41 <aaronpk> we don't need tons of features
16:19:49 <geppy> For what it's worth, that WG was an inclusivity working group, so "how do we increase diversity" was an area of expertise for the members.
16:20:23 <astronouth7303> if we have a gitlab, would we be moving the repos and publication to it as well?
16:20:48 <ajordan> yeah it seems like mostly we just need the issue tracker, PRs and git hosting right?
16:20:48 <ajordan> Gogs seems fine
16:21:12 <astronouth7303> i can see us making use of the CI and Pages
16:21:15 <cwebber2> notabug is hosted on gogs, I thought they were considering moving though
16:21:19 <cwebber2> might be worth seeing why
16:21:33 <saranix> geppy: A bit unique that this group is underneath it all about decentralization, and leveraging centralization for inclusivity would be hypocritical, it would be declaring that you can't be inclusive if you are decentralized, which is absolutely false
16:21:41 <astronouth7303> seeing as we produce documentation in source code, which gets turned into HTML and thrown at a website.
16:21:42 <geppy> And GitHub sucks at notifications, but there are tools on top of it like https://github.com/octobox/octobox
16:21:43 <Loqi> [octobox] octobox: :postbox: Take back control of your GitHub Notifications
16:21:49 <ajordan> lol @ the only outstanding RRSAgent request being from SocialWG
16:21:55 <cwebber2> maybe I'm wrong
16:22:03 <aaronpk> ajordan: ?
16:23:12 <cwebber2> geppy: looks like it's another web application to host, in which case maybe we might as well host our own
16:23:19 <ajordan> oh man geppy. thank you so much omg
16:23:28 <ajordan> aaronpk: feature request, that is
16:23:32 <aaronpk> where?
16:23:57 <cwebber2> oh, maybe everyone just uses octobox.io
16:23:59 <geppy> saranix: I mean, I'd love it if we selfdogfooded on this.  We could even have a service/bot that posted activity to+from GitHub.
16:24:02 <cwebber2> urgh
16:24:16 <cwebber2> obviously we should use the first vcs hoster to be federated ;)
16:24:25 <ajordan> sorry, was looking at the link on a different computer than my IRC
16:24:25 <cwebber2> maybe that should be our criteria
16:24:25 <ajordan> https://www.w3.org/wiki/RRSAgent
16:24:35 <cwebber2> we hold off on hosting anything else until one of them federates ;)
16:24:37 <ajordan> aaronpk: ^^^
16:24:39 <aaronpk> lol
16:24:51 <aaronpk> cwebber2: lol
16:24:57 <aaronpk> +1 to that
16:24:57 <astronouth7303> ... do we even have an idea of how ActivityPub is applied to group discussions?
16:25:13 <ajordan> tentative +1 honestly
16:25:18 <ajordan> on holding off until one federates
16:25:23 <cwebber2> astronouth7303: yes, because it happens on pump.io and the mechanism is pretty much the same
16:25:32 <cwebber2> you can create a collection of users, and use that in addressing
16:26:06 <astronouth7303> just checking
16:26:09 <geppy> ajordan: You're welcome!
16:26:16 <ajordan> well
16:26:19 <saranix> astronouth7303: I haven't gotten to that stage yet but I just assumed that it would be like zot where certain id's simply behave as forums, and forward posts to interested parties.
16:26:28 <ajordan> cwebber2: pump.io has lists but it doesn't have "groups" like in StatusNet
16:26:38 <MMN-work> ajordan cwebber2: it replicates the behaviour of mailing lists (but everyone apparently dislike mailing lists for some reason)
16:26:44 <ajordan> we've gotten salty randos complaining about this in the issue tracker ;)
16:26:57 <astronouth7303> list management is a thing, which i think eventually ties into cross-provider authn
16:27:31 <ajordan> MMN-work: in general I find mailing lists okay since I can deal with them in a decent interface. issue trackers are nicer though because they have labels and open/close states
16:27:35 <astronouth7303> ie, how does someone add themselves to a group?
16:28:08 <saranix> astronouth7303: well for my impl (and zot), they connect, like connecting to a person
16:28:29 <saranix> 'friending'
16:28:31 <geppy> I'd be interested in following an as:tag
16:29:47 <astronouth7303> this breaks LD signatures and e2e, doesn't it?
16:30:11 <ajordan> astronouth7303: what's "this"?
16:30:13 <MMN-work> ajordan: Yeah, the UI integration with issue tracking is what mails don't have. The amount of "unsubscribe" failures to your average 'mailman' list shows all clients haven't caught up yet :]
16:30:21 <saranix> astronouth7303: it does when federating with diaspora, but that's because of the enveloping. It's solvable.
16:30:35 <MMN-work>  (though Thunderbird and Evolution I think understand the mail headers which indicate how to unsubscribe etc.)
16:30:50 <ajordan> lol true MMN-work
16:31:11 <ajordan> but what I meant really was in a mailing list, how do I say "show me outstanding open issues"?
16:31:18 <ajordan> you can't
16:31:46 <ajordan> because things are "solved" when someone says (possibly implicitly) in the thread "this discussion is done"
16:31:57 <ajordan> which you can't easily query for
16:32:05 <aaronpk> ^^
16:33:02 <astronouth7303> a forwarding agent (list, group) can do one of two things: forward the message unmodified (possibly leaving providers confused about who should get it or running afoul of spam prevention), or resolve the collection in the destination fields (modifying the message and potentially invalidating signatures applied).
16:33:14 <MMN-work> ajordan: I think the main issue is that issues are always centralised and thus have implementation issues on decentralised, federated systems :] (because why should your "solved" mean that I can't continue discussion via _my_ mail account in that thread? .D)
16:33:29 <astronouth7303> Both are impossible with e2e without public or semi-public membership lists
16:33:55 <astronouth7303> and I'd have to look at the spec again to apply it to LD Signatures
16:34:15 <saranix> astronouth7303: not true. each subsriber has a one<->one relationship with the forwarding agent. This handles spam validation and keeps signatures intact.
16:34:28 <ajordan> MMN-work: ?
16:34:42 <MMN-work> ajordan: (I wrote that with the premise that everything could be solved with more mail headers, indicating whenever a thread is solved etc)
16:34:56 <ajordan> just because an issue is "closed" doesn't mean you can't still discuss it
16:34:57 <MMN-work> a thread/issue
16:34:58 <astronouth7303> so basically the forwarding agent just "retweets" everyone?
16:35:06 <saranix> yep
16:35:07 <MMN-work> ajordan: I
16:35:09 <ajordan> lol. mOAR HEADERS!
16:35:23 <saranix> err, not sure in relation to ActivityPub, I'm speaking on the protocols I work with
16:35:28 <MMN-work> ajordan: I'm getting a bit off-topic, I'll stop writing distracted thoughts from my head now. .)
16:35:37 <astronouth7303> saranix: what protocols do you work with?
16:35:40 <saranix> but I assume it's the same in ActivityPub
16:35:49 <saranix> or at least declarable
16:35:59 <saranix> I'm an optimist :-)
16:36:07 <astronouth7303> I think attributed reshares would be under AS2, which i have not read through yet
16:36:14 <saranix> zot and *redacted* ;-)
16:36:55 <astronouth7303> s/reshares/republication/
16:37:04 <saranix> yeah not reshare
16:37:43 <astronouth7303> we're going to have spec terms and UI terms, and it's going to be less good
16:38:30 <aaronpk> alright i'm going to post all the socialcg calls to my website, so you can subscribe to the ICS feed of it if you want
16:38:42 <aaronpk> web: https://aaronparecki.com/events?tag=socialcg
16:38:43 <Loqi> SocialCG Call
16:38:45 <aaronpk> ics: https://aaronparecki.com/events.ics?tag=socialcg
16:38:57 <nightpool> oh, nice.
16:39:18 <ben_thatmustbeme> good call aaronpk
16:39:23 <nightpool> sandro: also, wasn't able to mention this during the call, but I did find your github post useful (I thought I +1'd it?)
16:48:18 <nightpool> I edited the meeting minutes, but I'm still having trouble with my mediawiki account
16:48:38 <nightpool> If I post a gist, could someone copy it into https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2017-05-31-minutes ?
16:49:55 <aaronpk> sure
16:51:18 <nightpool> aaronpk: thanks!
16:51:19 <nightpool> https://gist.github.com/nightpool/d8cf3df6173c501ba6949bc6eecbb536
16:52:32 <ajordan> !tell geppy I'm in love with octobox.io. thanks again omg
16:52:32 <Loqi> Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
16:54:58 <ajordan> thanks aaronpk, that's extremely helpful
16:55:52 <aaronpk> nightpool: done https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2017-05-31-minutes
16:56:04 <ajordan> oops, I just did it too
16:56:21 <ajordan> yours won
16:56:40 <aaronpk> lol
16:57:46 <sandro> nightpool, thanks, I thought I'd get notifications!   Turns out +6, but I wasn't notified.
16:58:14 <aaronpk> lol i'd hate getting email notifications of all the reactions!
16:59:27 <nightpool> yeah, kind of the purpose of reactions is to replace people commenting "+1", because it was clogging up notifications
17:03:32 <jaywink> would be awesome if someone added activitypub federation to something like gitlab. would only be needed for PR's, comments and other social activity. git itself is decentralized so can just be pulled to any node when needed.
17:17:09 <Coco> Coco has joined #social
17:17:11 <tantek> wow scrollback
17:21:29 <tantek> and tools discussion? that's almost as bad as bikeshedding
17:21:38 <tantek> discourse-- for js;dr and general crappy UI design
17:21:38 <Loqi> discourse has 0 karma
17:22:40 <tantek> I agree with whoever made the point that github enables lower friction for broader participation
17:22:46 <tantek> github++ for that
17:22:46 <Loqi> github has 1 karma in this channel (16 overall)
17:22:52 <astronouth7303> tantek: i still think it's better than a lot of the tools available prior
17:23:05 <tantek> astronouth7303: absolutely not. even dumb mailing lists get archived
17:23:19 <astronouth7303> have you ever used phpBB?
17:23:22 <tantek> and it is slow as sh** as aaronpk said
17:23:50 <tantek> everything you put into discourse will be dead in 10 years and unfindable
17:24:00 <tantek> so basically, sure if you enjoy wasting your time with ephemera like that, go for it
17:24:05 <astronouth7303> yeah, we heard you the first time
17:24:14 <tantek> I prefer to build my sandcastles with actual sand on a beach
17:24:57 <tantek> regardless of what random tool "do we install" - that's the wrong question IMO
17:25:45 <saranix> what's the right question?
17:25:46 <tantek> github has a community, and frankly so much of all other "social web" like efforts are already there that it is seriously self-defeating to put an *open standards effort* someplace else
17:25:46 <tantek> unless you setup some sort of awesome mirroring setup like CSSWG have done
17:25:59 <tantek> where is best for broader participation and community?
17:26:25 <saranix> woah. I have to hard disagree on that one. See my comments in scrollback.
17:26:35 <ben_thatmustbeme> wow, phpBB, that goes back a ways, haven't heard anyone speak its name in years astronouth7303
17:26:37 <tantek> if you're working on some small private project / incubation, great, put it wherever
17:26:54 <nightpool>                 there that it is seriously self-defeating to put an *open standards effort* someplace else
17:26:55 <saranix> w3.org is not 'wherever'
17:26:58 <nightpool> whoops
17:27:03 <nightpool> sorry, I did not mean to send that
17:27:04 <tantek> but TONS of experience in W3C over the past n (5+?) years shows that efforts on github get much wider review, refinement, adoption etc.
17:27:33 <tantek> and believe me, I was one of the folks initially *against* moving anything from w3.org to github
17:27:47 <tantek> but the data (evidence of use / participation) over time has been undeniable
17:27:57 <tantek> so it's pointless (or at least impractical) to be dogmatic about it
17:28:19 <astronouth7303> and the members that _are_ being dogmatic about it?
17:28:20 <tantek> saranix: re: w3.org agreed
17:28:23 <saranix> This entire CG is a failure if it has to centralize to work
17:28:37 <tantek> saranix: then it's a failure, because there are no practical decentralized alternatives
17:28:58 <tantek> using tools that "just work" to boostrap yourself to a better world is just plain pragmatic
17:29:11 <astronouth7303> there's a difference between "intrinsically needing something" and "have put in the engineering effort to do something"
17:29:31 <sandro> right -- self-compiling compilers are great, but you don't start with them
17:29:33 <tantek> btw I am strongly *for* archiving/mirroring everything github related to somewhere on w3.org
17:29:48 <tantek> CSSWG does that
17:30:46 <saranix> The point of this group is to create stuff that "just works". All we have to do is do it
17:30:49 <tantek> astronouth7303: in my experience dogmatism is inversely correlated with productive output, so frankly, not much of a loss? certainly a reasonable trade-off IMO
17:31:03 <sandro> github should of course have an option for having all the non-git state visible inside git.    Maybe it would be a meta-repo.  Not sure.   :-)
17:31:22 <tantek> sandro++
17:31:22 <Loqi> sandro has 42 karma in this channel (49 overall)
17:31:58 <tantek> to sandro's point, a few folks in the indieweb have taken that up. e.g. they host their git repos on their own domain (mirror to github), and the post issues, comments etc. on their own domain (POSSE to github)
17:32:10 <saranix> I also think we are way past the bootstrapping phase
17:32:15 <tantek> saranix, to your point, there are folks that have figured out how to make it "just work"
17:32:19 <saranix> this stuff has been discussed for years
17:32:31 <tantek> saranix, I'm saying they're *doing it*, not just discussing it
17:33:00 <tantek> e.g. self-hosted repos (mirrored to github) http://indieweb.org/git#IndieWeb_Examples
17:33:04 <astronouth7303> so what's concretely required to happen in order to move discussions to a decentralized platform?
17:33:25 <tantek> and then self-hosted issues, comments etc, copied to GitHub: http://indieweb.org/GitHub#POSSE_to_GitHub
17:33:44 <tantek> astronouth7303: a decentralized platform
17:33:51 <ben_thatmustbeme> so, the point of this group is to experiment with things, thats why it is an "Incubator" community group. Just pick something and move on.
17:33:52 <tantek> doesn't exist currently
17:34:18 <tantek> (certainly not in any practical form)
17:34:32 <astronouth7303> we have mastodon and gnu social, and i believe they're interoperating.
17:34:36 <saranix> tantek: you are contradicting yourself
17:34:46 <astronouth7303> so we have some platform
17:34:48 <tantek> astronouth7303: haven't seen issues on those
17:34:53 <tantek> maybe I missed that feature
17:34:56 <astronouth7303> what's concretely required to happen in order to move discussions to a decentralized platform?
17:35:03 <tantek> saranix "platform" doesn't exist
17:35:13 <astronouth7303> define "platform"
17:35:15 <tantek> several indieweb folks are doing it on their own sites in one-off ways
17:35:17 <tantek> very different
17:35:44 <saranix> yes, but my "just works" comment was WRT your "just works" comment about why github
17:35:46 <tantek> astronouth7303: http://indieweb.org/platform
17:36:05 <astronouth7303> we have protocols and software that implement them.
17:36:26 <tantek> just not for this use-case
17:36:28 <astronouth7303> not all the protocols have complete implementations.
17:36:36 <tantek> nor test suites, interop etc.
17:36:42 <tantek> hence why we have work to do
17:36:50 <tantek> hence why I said bootstrap above
17:36:54 <astronouth7303> there's a bunch of test suites
17:37:08 <astronouth7303> and i think it was said that pump.io implements forwarding agents?
17:37:29 <tantek> no idea why that particular detail means anything in this convo
17:37:34 <astronouth7303> no, none if it is complete, but it feels complete enough to move towards dog-fooding
17:37:52 <jaywink> imho mastodon, gnusocial or any other social platform doesn't replace tools like github, discourse or mailing lists. .. forum like software and "status message" based software are completely different use cases
17:37:55 <astronouth7303> a forwarding agent is the thing that would actually implement lists/groups
17:38:02 <tantek> jaywink++ exactly
17:38:02 <Loqi> jaywink has 2 karma
17:38:07 <cwebber2> * tantek refuses to bother using discourse, everything there is dead to history
17:38:07 <cwebber2> 
17:38:11 <cwebber2> btw I'm not saying we should use it
17:38:22 <cwebber2> but both github and discourse are about equal by *this* metric:
17:38:26 <tantek> IRC > discourse FWIW
17:38:26 <cwebber2> both render reasonably without js
17:38:34 <saranix> jaywink: old way of thinking. ActivityPub and Linked Data is set to reverse that
17:38:39 <tantek> cwebber2: not even close
17:38:39 <cwebber2> and both aren't really usable to interact with without JS
17:39:00 <cwebber2> tantek: that's one of the big complaints about github, no way to use it without proprietary javascript
17:39:21 <tantek> cwebber2 - I kinda sorta agree with that? I'm more talking about the auto-archiving
17:39:49 <astronouth7303> if you just mean archiving for posterity, you could make a webhook that stashes stuff to files in an afternoon
17:40:10 <tantek> "you could" = entitlement tax no one has marginal time to pay
17:40:20 <jaywink> saranix: it's not a protocol thing - it's just different ways of representing data :) sure you could combine both into one software stack
17:40:22 <cwebber2> tantek: what do you mean auto-archiving?
17:40:25 <tantek> whereas archive.org automatically does normal archiving for you
17:40:37 <saranix> jaywink: s/could/should
17:40:42 <tantek> cwebber2 have you read js;dr?
17:40:48 <cwebber2> tantek: archive.org can archive discourse sites I think?
17:40:56 <tantek> not AFAIK
17:41:00 <jaywink> well, not all use cases are required by everyone
17:41:08 <cwebber2> tantek: I just opened that discourse page in lynx
17:41:10 <cwebber2> it works fine
17:41:12 <astronouth7303> tantek: yes, everything we're discussing would involve technical effort.
17:41:28 <tantek> astronouth7303: not using github.
17:41:55 <astronouth7303> .... you're just being pedantic now.
17:42:00 <tantek> to be clear, if someone wants to experiment / dog-food decentralized alternatives, go for it
17:42:25 <cwebber2> tantek: at any rate, I proposed a route I think is pretty reasonable :)
17:42:26 <tantek> I am only saying it is premature to make any such experiment / dogfood any kind of "primary" space for us
17:42:35 <cwebber2> tantek: we don't switch away until one of these places provides federation ;)
17:42:43 <tantek> hah! nice bar cwebber2
17:43:04 <tantek> cwebber2: and to that extent all the cited indieweb uses *today* are federated
17:44:02 <tantek> cwebber2 the folks doing http://indieweb.org/git#IndieWeb_Examples and http://indieweb.org/GitHub#POSSE_to_GitHub
17:44:36 <tantek> that's self-dog-fooding which is frankly even more convincing than any dog-fooding
17:44:40 <nightpool> aaronpk: I tried working through some of the websub tests, but it seems that (as far as I can tell) mastodon passes none of them. Which ones were you expecting it to pass?
17:45:06 <cwebber2> tantek: I'm not sure I consider POSSE federation in the way I'm talking about, even if desirable
17:45:16 <saranix> I abhor POSSE. I feel like it is an afront to what we're trying to do here.
17:45:16 <cwebber2> tantek: I'm talking about federated pull requests, etc
17:46:08 <tantek> saranix, then we have different ideas of what we're trying to do. I am prioritizing reaching people over purity of tools / protocols
17:46:28 <tantek> cwebber2  http://indieweb.org/git#IndieWeb_Examples  are doing federated pull requests
17:46:47 <tantek> and http://indieweb.org/GitHub#POSSE_to_GitHub are doing federated issues and comments
17:46:50 <saranix> tantek, to me, that's like trying to lose weight with portion control alone
17:47:04 <cwebber2> tantek: that doesn't look like the pull request state is being federated across the instances to me?
17:47:05 <cwebber2> am I wrong?
17:47:08 <cwebber2> distributed git is great
17:47:19 <cwebber2> and in fact we use distributed git in mediagoblin
17:47:28 <cwebber2> we have people host their own repos and submit their branches to the issue tracker
17:47:32 <cwebber2> but I don't think that's the same thing
17:48:01 <cwebber2> there's still a central place for PRs, and it doesn't resemble federation in the same way we're doing federated social web protocols
17:48:06 <tantek> saranix, cannot agree to that analogy sorry - that's a much more complex and individual-specific subject that requires more medical expertise
17:48:09 <cwebber2> I'm not saying it's not useful, but it isn't what I'm talking about
17:48:40 <saranix> tantek, terrible analogy, I'll admit. I'm trying to convey that just be reducing dependency on evil does not free you from evil
17:48:46 <astronouth7303> a VCS+PM extension to AS2 would be interesting, though
17:48:47 <jaywink> I would think of federated git a bit like a traditional social media (decentralized) site. Like Diaspora, as an example. My profile would contain several git repos. WHen I post a PR it would be pushed to my followers, same for comments and such. Any anyone can subscribe to one of my repos, getting updates about. The repo is till located on my server.
17:48:51 <tantek> cwebber2 not sure I understand. people still have (need) ownership over their own repos, but the pulls are distributed AFAIK
17:49:22 <tantek> saranix it's the other way around, POSSE directs traffic and awareness away from silos to decentralized instances
17:49:40 <tantek> it's using silos own distribution / reach to market alternatives
17:50:16 <cwebber2> jaywink: yes that's what I'm talking about
17:50:32 <cwebber2> you should also be able to submit a pull request, maybe something like
17:50:42 <saranix> tantek, but still allows silos to be a source of YOUR content, they still get aggregation benefits. The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line and not a zig-zag. Allowing silos to be part of the end game means you will never get to the end. They are diametricly opposed to the goal.
17:50:48 <jaywink> POSSE seems like a good idea for a workaround while no solutions exist - but really jsut a workaround
17:50:52 <nightpool> Pull Requests are just basically a Note with a specialized @-mention, right?
17:51:00 <nightpool> they are "I request you pull this code from me"
17:51:03 <nightpool> with threaded discussion
17:51:08 <tantek> saranix - no assumption of "silos to be part of the end game"
17:51:12 <tantek> quite the opposite
17:51:21 <tantek> POSSE = silos can disappear and you still have all your content
17:51:23 <Loqi> I agree
17:51:34 <tantek> + backfeed = silos can disappear and you still have all the *responses* to your content
17:51:37 <saranix> tanktek, if you admit they are not the end, then you can't get to the end by passing through them
17:51:50 <tantek> saranix, false. ephemeral != end
17:52:12 <astronouth7303> @nightpool there can be additional data attached. GitHub/Gitlab actually attach commits to PRs
17:52:15 <tantek> you can use silos ephemeral means to a decentralized ends
17:52:29 <saranix> you have convinced yourself that they will eventually disappear but if you keep feeding them content then they never will.
17:52:30 <cwebber2> {"type": "PullRequest",
17:52:30 <cwebber2>  "code": <public-git-branch/revision-here>
17:52:30 <cwebber2>  "to": ["https://jaywink.example/u/jaywink/", "https://jaywink.example/git/project/"],
17:52:35 <cwebber2>  // @@: or target??
17:52:39 <cwebber2>  "object": "https://jaywink.example/git/project/"}
17:52:39 <cwebber2> something like that.
17:53:03 <tantek> saranix, "they never will [disappear]" also false, by evidence: https://indieweb.org/site-deaths
17:53:12 <jaywink> cwebber2++
17:53:12 <Loqi> cwebber2 has 86 karma
17:53:30 <tantek> I mean goodness sakes: https://indieweb.org/site-deaths#Google_Code
17:53:39 <jaywink> I smell an AS2 extension :)
17:53:55 <cwebber2> jaywink: yeah I should mock it up
17:54:10 <tantek> It's the opposite really. silos will die and disappear DESPITE putting content into them
17:54:26 <astronouth7303> cwebber2: be sure to look in to some of the deeper features (eg, CI integration)
17:54:45 <cwebber2> astronouth7303: yeah there's a lot of vocabulary to probably cover
17:55:06 <astronouth7303> collaborative documents (ie, wiki, snippets) might be out of scope
17:55:10 <cwebber2> astronouth7303: CI integration could be intersting; you could get a message sent to you when things pass/fail if you've subscribed to the CI endpoint
17:55:20 <cwebber2> you could literally follow/unfollow a CI endpoint as if it were an actor?
17:55:26 <cwebber2> same with repos
17:55:30 <astronouth7303> possibly?
17:55:36 <saranix> tantek, none of what you say rectifies that in order to put anything on github, one has to decide that they do not care about the evil that github is doing with that participation metadata. Since I'm someone who cares, I'm left out. How is that 'reaching more people'... it isn't.
17:55:37 <cwebber2> I'm not saying it's definitely a good idea
17:55:46 <cwebber2> maybe you like your firehose to be extra pressurized ;)
17:55:48 <jaywink> if the CI follows you it will build your commit :)
17:56:16 <astronouth7303> interestingly, gitlab and github attach CI data to commits, not PRs
17:56:44 <tantek> saranix, rather it is not "do not care about" but rather making a considered trade-off decision about. Your general point stands about any silo, and there are much worse offenders re: "doing with that participation metadata."
17:56:54 <astronouth7303> (note: gitlab calls them merge requests)
17:57:06 <jaywink> astronouth7303: that makes sense since commits in non-PR's are also built
17:57:40 <astronouth7303> so a CI status could be an activity in reply to a commit activity?
17:57:49 <cwebber2> astronouth7303: yeah, "pull request" is the traditional term for some reason originating from lkml, but "merge request" is so much more reasonablw
17:57:54 <cwebber2> reasonable
17:57:56 <saranix> So if I'm someone who cares about decentralized end goal, and I want to participate, but I can't because a central "trade-off" is required, and I don't want to make that trade off, then that is an impediment to the end goal. Do you get what I'm saying yet?
17:58:13 <astronouth7303> i was thinking that pull request was the more accurate in a decentralized system? :shrug:
17:58:40 <tantek> saranix, you're posing a different question/challenge, about individual preference vs. cost to group / community, and there is no easy answer to that
17:59:03 <tantek> either approach has considered downsides
17:59:49 <astronouth7303> so i guess a PR activity would need CommitAttach activity to actually link it to commit activities?
17:59:58 <saranix> I believe that the cost to the individual is a great cost to the community (and it's principals), that's where we diverge I guess
18:00:04 <tantek> saranix, and as such, I think that's a worthy question to be asking W3C-wide (as much / most of W3C work is moving to github)
18:00:08 <astronouth7303> since commit activities are attached to branches, if anything
18:01:26 <tantek> saranix, absolute adherence to principles that result in nothing getting done tends to indicate either a flaw with the principles, or different priorities for getting something done, which has to be a high priority for any group effort, or else it's just social chatter
18:01:43 <jaywink> isn't a PR always merging the head of a branch to another branch head? but basically commit to commit
18:02:17 <saranix> What I find really strange about your reasoning, is the idea that people use github like they use facebook... like they're on there everyday surfing for projects. To me it doesn't matter if the link is to github.com, w3.org, or heylookat.me... I see no network effect.
18:02:42 <tantek> the CSSWG is finding ways around this, e.g. now has a bot that comments on github issues instead of individuals having to do that
18:02:52 <tantek> (very new, like past few weeks)
18:02:57 <tantek> (maybe month and half)
18:03:12 <astronouth7303> jaywink: under current implementations, but the data schemas don't require that
18:03:19 <cwebber2> astronouth7303: yes, you could have some sort of Commit, though I think it would be a non-activity
18:03:25 <tantek> check out "github-bot" in #css
18:03:30 <cwebber2> probably {Create {Commit}}
18:03:37 <astronouth7303> fair
18:03:47 <cwebber2> but you can put the Commit inReplyTo the PullRequest/MergeRequest
18:04:02 <astronouth7303> not intrinsically?
18:04:06 <cwebber2> hm
18:04:14 <cwebber2> astronouth7303: why not?
18:04:29 <jaywink> a request to merge a single commit to a branch (not on top of head) would I guess be a git cherry-pick :)
18:04:35 <astronouth7303> you have commits before the PR is made
18:04:53 <cwebber2> astronouth7303: I guess you might need a Merge
18:04:56 <cwebber2> I dunno
18:05:03 <cwebber2> but you only need to have the merge capture the commit that it pulled in
18:05:10 <cwebber2> the others are implicit
18:05:15 <cwebber2> in the git DAG
18:05:18 <astronouth7303> and you're assuming that all implementations want to immediately attach commits to active PRs
18:05:47 <cwebber2> astronouth7303: I'm thinking out loud, so my assumptions are vague, I'm just trying to work through it :)
18:06:00 <astronouth7303> i work a _lot_ with github/gitlab
18:06:03 <jaywink> changing history is also a thing. One would have to support pushing a new head commit out
18:06:16 <astronouth7303> oh god, i hate --force
18:06:19 <astronouth7303> it ruins everything
18:06:39 <jaywink> but it's a thing, especially in PR branches
18:06:48 <astronouth7303> but yeah, you can't have a commit in a pr/mr without the parents up to the common ancestor
18:06:49 <jaywink> hopefully not in master for a lot of projects :D
18:06:57 <tantek> saranix, I am going to both 1 raise the points you made as larger w3c-wide issues (because I think it's worth doing so) but won't use as a specific example, and 2 exploring how CSSWG is reducing dependency on having/using a github account
18:07:35 <saranix> tantek++
18:07:35 <Loqi> tantek has 58 karma in this channel (346 overall)
18:07:45 <cwebber2> astronouth7303: well rebasing on a *feature branch* is fine
18:07:50 <cwebber2> but shouldn't happen on master ever
18:07:59 <tantek> I cannot promise any answers per se, but I believe it is worth asking the questions. maybe asking will cause answers in the future.
18:08:14 <astronouth7303> i disagree, and surprise feature rebases have bitten me before
18:08:47 <astronouth7303> (but yes, lots of people follow rebasing and/or squashing workflows)
18:09:10 <astronouth7303> (i just think they're wrong)
18:09:52 <astronouth7303> although note: from a code stand point, `master` isn't special
18:10:13 <saranix> tantek, appreciated
18:10:19 <astronouth7303> assuming you're tying your extensions to git
18:10:25 <astronouth7303> (fun times: make it VCS generic)
18:12:06 <astronouth7303> so is the project a forwarding agent, or do you break up a project into several agents?
18:12:20 <nightpool> I don't think that pushing commits into the social sphere is a good idea
18:12:24 <nightpool> git is already decentralized
18:12:24 <tantek> saranix, if there are links you can share (blog posts, articles etc.) that describe/analyze the undesirability of github's "data / usage use" practices, I would be interested in helping to document that.
18:12:30 <saranix> I think it's worth mentioning too that the 'absolutists' that insist the most on avoid silos are likely the most passionate contributors to the cause, and by requiring silos you are excluding the most passionate
18:12:45 <nightpool> The only thing that should be represented as AS2 objects is the conversation
18:12:54 <nightpool> which DOES include inline comments but does NOT include commits
18:13:24 <tantek> saranix, I'm not sure optimizing for "most passionate" results in the shortest path to decentralization. In my experience those who balance idealism/passion with pragmatism end up pushing the envelope the fastest.
18:14:02 <Zakim> Zakim has left #social
18:14:10 <Loqi> yeah who invited you anyway Zakim
18:14:41 <sandro> wtf Loqi, why so rude??
18:14:57 <tantek> sandro, Loqi can be tempermental at times
18:15:10 <tantek> maybe that will help
18:15:31 <astronouth7303> nightpool: i think there's too much referring to commits to not have them represented at all. At minimum, you need a URL scheme for commits.
18:15:58 <astronouth7303> and CI requires a pubsub mechanism to be notified of activity
18:16:19 <astronouth7303> (ie, pushes)
18:17:44 <sandro> When you say URL scheme, you mean a real new URI scheme, like gitcommit:xxxxxx... or just a mapping to working URLs like https://host.example/commit/xxxxxxx.... ?
18:18:11 <saranix> tantek: You look at it as optimizing for the most passionate vs pragmatists, I look at it as making an explicit judgement call to *exclude* the passionate.
18:19:00 <astronouth7303> it needs to map to JSON-LD, so if it's HTTP/S, it needs to be LD. If it's `git+`, then you can say "oh, here's how to map it to git's protocols"
18:19:09 <astronouth7303> and the LD representation is virtual, then
18:19:26 <astronouth7303> but then you can't tie, say, a commit author to a AP agent
18:19:30 <jaywink> nightpool: well it depends on if you mean the commit itself or a reference to it. A reference has to be included in any activity that ... refers to it. But there should never be a need to include the commit itself? since it can be just fetched
18:19:54 <tantek> saranix, I get that. OTOH, other options exclude the pragmatic. Which is why there is no easy answer.
18:20:33 <tantek> and most are on a spectrum from pragmatic to passionate / idealistic. hence why it is an optimization question than an exclusion question.
18:20:38 <astronouth7303> (or hg+, bzr+, mtn+, ...)
18:22:37 <astronouth7303> (ok, you could have a distributed table mapping git emails to agent URLs, but ugggggggggggggg)
18:31:32 <astronouth7303> so yeah, having actual commit AS2 objects would be extremely verbose, but I suspect that they become a necessity.
20:20:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> lol, sandro, you just noticed that, loqi only says that to Zakim,  I think there is some bot rivalry there
20:21:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> or at least that i have seen
20:30:15 <sandro> I tend to ignore what bots say, yeah.   Has it hardcoded Zakim, or some bot flag, or ...?
20:36:44 <astronouth7303> i just assumed it was hard-coded, because some developer was bored
20:41:50 <ajordan> holy moly
20:42:18 <ajordan> so much scrollback which is *really* interesting
20:42:28 <ajordan> will read later but in the meantime I thought I'd just leave this here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/4013#note_27767988
20:42:34 <ajordan> jaywink, others: ^^^
20:53:17 <jaywink> Yeah if it happens somewhere anytime soon my bet would be in gitlab
20:58:23 <astronouth7303> problem is i don't think there's anyone really comparable to gitlab, so i don't think interoperability is real high on the list
20:58:49 <astronouth7303> *shrug* probably to be expected to some degree, and we should probably take the strangelove approach to it.
22:10:22 <KjetilK> KjetilK has joined #social