See also: IRC log
<jaywink> (irc only though)
<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2
<ajordan> ;)
<ben_thatmustbeme> i'll try to scribe the the AP section if needed, i don't know if i'll have to leave early or not though
eprodro57: looks like we have two weeks of minutes to review. I think for the 6-27 we have the wrong minutes... looks like the CG minutes...
ajordan: we do have some CG minutes that are missing
<eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-06-27-minutes
cwebber2: I think the CG can deal with the CG's missing minutes part
ben_thatmustbeme: I volunteer to track down the minutes for later
eprodrom: ok instead of proposing to review the minutes for 6-27 let's review the minutes for 7-11
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-07-11-minutes as minutes of the 2017-07-11 meeting
<ajordan> +1
+1
<eprodrom> +0
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
<rhiaro> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-07-11-minutes as minutes of the 2017-07-11 meeting
<rhiaro> I'll chase down those
eprodrom: so we have to shake down the 6-27 minutes and I guess we'll have to do that
<rhiaro> I thin kthat was a sandro scribing week
eprodrom: one thing about minutes we can see who did what
<ben_thatmustbeme> its clearly the 6/28 minutes there
<ben_thatmustbeme> from the CG
eprodrom: do we have the raw minutes?
<rhiaro> Give me 5 mins I'll find it
eprodrom: I'd like to move forward
<ajordan> rhiaro++
eprodrom: let's talk about the next item which is august dates
<rhiaro> Last week everyone voted, and we have results, but for a couple pending Evan's opinion
<rhiaro> :)
eprodrom: in august we have 5 tuesdays, we talked about doing every other week?
<rhiaro> <sandro> CANCELING July 18, ug 8, Aug 22
<rhiaro> <tantek> for sure: 7/25, 8/15, 8/29. 8/1 contingent on Evan chairing
cwebber: I propose we do meetings every week because we seem to wanting to cut down meetings and are not able to
<ben_thatmustbeme> -1 as i feel like most of the meetings are things that should be done async anyway
eprodrom: it's just at tough time to have frequent meetings, but
<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: cancel meetings for 8/9 and 8/22
<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: cancel meetings for 8/8 and 8/22
<rhiaro> +1 and +1 from sandro in absentia
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
cwebber2: -0 but i won't fight it
<eprodrom> +1
<ajordan> +0
RESOLUTION: cancel meetings for 8/8 and 8/22
eprodrom: tantek is not here yet,
so I'd like to push PTD to the end of the agenda
... let's talk about bridging
<rhiaro> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-06-27-minutes minutes are corrected
ajordan: I guess that's me
<ajordan> https://indieweb.org/bridge#ActivityPub
ajordan: this is something that
came out of indieweb summit, and basically we think we can find
a semi-decent way to bridge activtiypub and the indieweb
stack
... so the simplest by far is micropub, because we think it can
be possible to write a website that can transform microformats
into an ap activity
... the tricky thing is mentions, there are two parts of this;
AP->IW sites, and IW->AP
... so AP->IW, my theory is that IW sites should be able to
put a static paage on the root of the site
... so any time an AP site mentions the actor at that
site
... all mutation and stuff will resolve to a bridge service
that will construct things on the fly
... that sort of makes sense
eprodrom: for it would be a
facade server doing AP on one side or IW on the other? C2S is
simple on this system, you use your preferred provider, and the
bridge does transformations
... for S2S, what you're saying is that IW servers, if IW
servers that support webmention, they should also have a way to
expose AP server to server by handing that off to a bridge.
that bridge would take anything coming to an inbox and
translate it back
... so yeah
ajordan: exactly
... this does require the IW site to put the JSON file at the
root
... I should make it clear we put this at the root and then set
the server to ?
<ben_thatmustbeme> JSON file at the root, would be a problem for some
ajordan: if the IW site does not
do this, you can have a situtation where you prefix this url
with the bridge url, then you query the bridge url and get an
actor back and all that
... so that's a worse UX but it should work
... even if the IW site hasn't opted in
eprodrom: from my point of view
of discovery, if we're not solving on discovery, maybe we could
have another discovery mechanism such as link headers,
etc
... if my site returns html you can do antoher discovery
method
... you should be able to get the json descriptor currently in
AP
... so could we expand AP to say in the erroneous situation
where they return HTML instead of JSON, this is what you will
do
ajordan: what would you do in that case
<cwebber2> jaywink, I agree
eprodrom: so link rel=inbox, href=url of bridge, etc
<eprodrom> <link rel="inbox" href="URL of bridge">
ajordan: if you're already going to do this if you're already adding this?
<ben_thatmustbeme> evan covered it
eprodrom: if you're adding
something with just html but can't do content negotiation
... there's a big jump between them, I think
ajordan: I can file an issue about this
cwebber2: I think it would be nice, but it could be a MAY, it's already a lot of work
eprodrom: it could be an
extension
... also you could do rdfa or something similar
... you could grab out the AS2 data
... probably not the most exciting thing for MF2 folks, but a
possibility
<rhiaro> the link rel would parse as rdfa
<rhiaro> LDN already got that covered
ajordan: seems like we're agreeing it's either a MAY or an extension
<tantek> wait why are we talking about theoreticals? ("or even"?)
ben_thatmustbeme: if you implement it as a MAY, doesn't it break federation?
<tantek> At this point, it doesn't make any sense to include anything in the spec that's not at least semi-widely implemented / deployed like that
eprodrom: yeah I think that's absolutely right and if that's not something we want to do let's not build two diferent stacks
<tantek> rather than trying to be politically correct (or we can be politically correct in informative Notes)
ben_thatmustbeme: I don't think
this is specific to bridging
... if you're going to support it it should be required
<rhiaro> 1) This bridging stuff can go in SWP if we settle it, not needed in AP
<rhiaro> 2) Can we timebox this discussion and end it imminently because there's lots of AP stuff to go through?
<Zakim> rhiaro, you wanted to say (typing on irc only)
<rhiaro> ^^^^
<rhiaro> No
<tantek> I think it can be in SWP if it's figured out, the point of the discussion is spec impacts
<tantek> it's not figured out AFAIK
cwebber2: I think this shouldn't be rdfa, it could be embedded as json-ld as is done in schema.org things etc
tantek: +1 on not doing rdfa, we
shouldn't do normative text that's not deployed
... I agree with moving to SWP when it's figured out
... that's what I'm interested in, if it requires spec changes
then it needs to be figured out asap
<eprodrom> call dropped
<Loqi> Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-06-27-minutes]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=103817&oldid=103706
<tantek> bridging++
<Loqi> bridging has 1 karma
eprodrom, you dropped out, tantek is temporarily saying we're moving on
<eprodrom> Let's move on to the next topic
<eprodrom> cwebber2: yep
<ajordan> eprodrom: we didn't discuss IndieWeb -> ActivityPub (the other direction) but it's at https://indieweb.org/bridge#ActivityPub and pretty clear if you want to look at it
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/242#issuecomment-315645158
<Loqi> [strugee] Link to the Etherpad from the Mumble call: https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/activitypub-implicit-explit
<Loqi> Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this was the consensus:
<Loqi> 1. sharedInbox is used only for public and followers delivery, ev...
<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick:ben_thatmustbeme
cwebber2: we are basically seeing
DB / storage issues bleed in to spec
... we have a public inbox vs shared inboxes
to allow for delivery to large sets of users
<jaywink> :D
cwebber2: i would like to rename to shared inbox
(request coming)
<cwebber2> PROPOSAL: Rename publicInbox to sharedInbox and allow it to both post public posts and posts to followers
<tantek> ajordan: which summary in github?
<ajordan> tantek: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/242#issuecomment-315645158
<Loqi> [strugee] Link to the Etherpad from the Mumble call: https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/activitypub-implicit-explit
<Loqi> Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this was the consensus:
<Loqi> 1. sharedInbox is used only for public and followers delivery, ev...
<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/242#issuecomment-315645158
<Loqi> [strugee] Link to the Etherpad from the Mumble call: https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/activitypub-implicit-explit
<Loqi> Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this was the consensus:
<Loqi> 1. sharedInbox is used only for public and followers delivery, ev...
sandro: my one concern is if
someone posts to this, thats malformed, it doesn't end up
public when they didn't want it to
... the implicit action that creates, is that also true on
this
cwebber2: thats only on client to server
sandro: no problem then
<cwebber2> PROPOSAL: Rename publicInbox to sharedInbox and allow it to both post public posts and posts to followers
<ajordan> +1
<cwebber2> +1
<jaywink> +1
<aaronpk> this is a breaking change to all implementations, right?
<rhiaro> all implementatins that implemented publicInbox which I don't think is required..? (correct me..)
<ajordan> aaronpk: not technically
<ajordan> we're changing semantics but we're also changing the name, and the existing publicInbox is a MAY
tantek: where is the actual change to the spec here
cwebber2: this is allowing for if you are posting to all of your (millions of) followers but not posting publicly
<tantek> is this implementable? prototyped?
cwebber2: the receiving server
will see that this is to their followers collection and it
knows who the followers are on your server
... you can already do that, but you currently also have to
post it publicly
<ajordan> tantek: I'm not sure about implementations but Mastodon has made it clear that they need this
<ajordan> and are planning to do it
tantek: i'm a little concerned that we are making changes to a CR that no one has implemententd
cwebber2: mastodon is already implmenting it, and puckipedia is implementing it
tantek: thats a good thing to capture in an issue, not to make it a change in the CR
<jaywink> before it was all just theory
tantek: you think this is a change to existing functionality, not adding?
cwebber2: it is a slight add of
being able to not post publicly
... it is breaking
<eprodrom> tantek: I'm back, can chair from here
ajordan: afaict its not
breaking
... it was a may before and its a may now
... so any that didn't do it before, it doesn't matter, and
anyone who did it before will still be compliant (just without
that feature)
... we both shared the same concerns as you (tantek) had, but
its really just refining this feature
tantek: i am not questioning the Why at all, i am just trying to make sure we do the right thing for our CR
sandro: your concern is that we are making this change but we are going to have to change it back
tantek: i think we may need to
change it again
... in order to minimize issues, its better to implement it
before it goes in to the CR
<rhiaro> If we made this change now and had to fix it in a month, or if we wait a month and make it then, it doesn't make any difference to CR.
<rhiaro> tantek cwebber2 ^^?
tantek: you can land the text in
the ED of how this will work
... but before it lands in CR, it should have prototypes
<ajordan> rhiaro: by "make this change" do you mean the WD or the published CR?
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: for https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/242 rename publicInbox to sharedInbox and allow sending to followers only
<rhiaro> ajordan: CR
<ajordan> right
<ajordan> +1
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: for https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/242, group supports renaming publicInbox to sharedInbox and allowing sending to followers only IFF implementation support
<cwebber2> +1
<ajordan> +1
<jaywink> +1
tantek: in general thats a good bar for AP changes at this point
<eprodrom> +1
+1
<cwebber2> sandro: +1
<jaywink> but it can still land in the editors draft to not confuse current wip version?
<eprodrom> tantek: thank you
eprodrom: is it okay if we defer 244?
<ajordan> tantek++
<Loqi> tantek has 66 karma in this channel (370 overall)
<Loqi> [cwebber] #242 sharedInbox / siteInbox type endpoint (publicInbox, but not just for public posts)
<Loqi> [cwebber] #242 sharedInbox / siteInbox type endpoint (publicInbox, but not just for public posts)
<rhiaro> I can't stay
<ben_thatmustbeme> i cannot stay late on audio
<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2
aaronpk: I think the only topic is the one in the notes
<ben_thatmustbeme> rejoining
<eprodrom> https://git.postactiv.com/postActiv/postActiv/issues/139#note_1690
aaronpk: the person does not want to submit an implementation report because they're unhappy with EME
sandro: I think there's not a lot we can do about it and we should move on
ben_thatmustbeme: on another point, as in terms of websub implementation reports, an fyi that diaspora did an implementation of websub but might not submit an implementation report because they may drop OStatus
sandro: I think it would be nice
to have impl reports that speak to just that it's compatible
with classic PuSH
... for me that's valuable
tantek: good point
eprodrom: that sounds reasonable
<tantek> sandro++ for seeing the positive. thank you
<Loqi> sandro has 47 karma in this channel (54 overall)
<rhiaro> Adding for the minutes that sandro said he will report the EME thing to Team and tantek will report to AB
eprodrom: do we have ways in impl report template for 3rd party supporters?
aaronpk: there's nothing in the
template right now but I know there's a line with author /
etc
... nothing else for websub
<ben_thatmustbeme> http://dissolve.github.io/jf2/#changes-from-27-june-2017-wd-to-this-version
ben_thatmustbeme: looking for more info for impl reports
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: publish new working draft of JF2 based on editor's draft at http://dissolve.github.io/jf2/#changes-from-27-june-2017-wd-to-this-version
<ajordan> +1
+1
<eprodrom> +1
<aaronpk> +1
tantek: I'm seeing validator, sample set, implementation reports linking to jf2.rocks, is that right?
ben_thatmustbeme: that's the landing page for now that links them all
tantek: ok just checking
<tantek> +1
RESOLUTION: publish new working draft of JF2 based on editor's draft at http://dissolve.github.io/jf2/#changes-from-27-june-2017-wd-to-this-version
tantek: 30 sec update, I'm
successfully using JF2 to do social embedding on my site
... just as an FYI
... it's working very well as a transport format
... that's how I'm showing rsvp's on my site
<Loqi> [tantek] #25 Response Type: consider "reply" for 2nd to last for fallback use-cases
<ajordan> scribenick: ajordan
cwebber2: this one's big but it's short
<Loqi> [cwebber] #244 Accept / Reject a Follow
cwebber2: people want to be able
to accept and reject followers
... we propose that everyone always sends an
accept/reject
... for people that always want to accept, you just
automatically send an accept back
... this makes it mandatory that you always send an
accept/reject to a follow request
eprodrom: what happens to
existing impls that don't send an accept or reject
... can you say they're default accepted?
cwebber2: so this is why we need
to make it mandatory...
... so if you don't hear back you'd know
... you could possibly check the followers list
sandro: it could take a couple weeks right?
cwebber2: if you don't hear back
you'd see a "waiting" type interface
... I agree that this is a big backwards-breaking change
eprodrom: three states: waiting, accepted, rejected
<ben_thatmustbeme> this sounds like a mix of network stack levels
eprodrom: what if I get an update
from someone I'm waiting on
... what if I've been rejected and I receive something
cwebber2: this is tricky because I can add you to my friends list but not my followers list
<ben_thatmustbeme> are we talking about an ACK as i receieved the request?
cwebber2: diaspora-style aspects
eprodrom: maybe if you reject a
follower just don't send them anything
... you've got a lot of cases here and I'm not sure what that
complexity buys us
sandro: it buys you a good
UI
... I clicked mastodon's follow button and I was frustrated
because it didn't provide any feedback
... but it was really in the waiting state
cwebber2: there's another reason
that we need this in a sense
... other social networks provide this
... Facebook provides this
<eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#connections
cwebber2: I think it's necessary
???: the whole relationship schema is for that
scribe: follows/unfollows are for this
<eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#connections
s/???eprodrom/
cwebber2: that could
work...
... I didn't realize this was in the spec, this seems kind of
reasonable
... I'd move towards figuring out how to do this in the
spec
... it'd be a normative change but wouldn't break backwards
compat
... it'll take time; I'll work on this
<jaywink> isn't a Follow nothing to do with friend request? it's jsut "I follow that person if they send me something they will"
eprodrom: it lets you have a
regular following mechanism like other social networks
have
... without all the acks and nacks and stuff
cwebber2: 5 minutes late, I want
to get to the one other related thing
... big debate in e.g. Mastodon/AP as to whether you federate a
Block
... Mastodon *has* to federate a Block because they don't
explicitly ???
... we had a conversation and realized we were kind of
overloading Block
... there's disallowing side effects, and there's basically a
"request to unfollow"
<eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-block
<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/242#issuecomment-315645158
cwebber2: "I don't want to deliver to you anymore"
<Loqi> [strugee] Link to the Etherpad from the Mumble call: https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/activitypub-implicit-explit
<Loqi> Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this was the consensus:
<Loqi> 1. sharedInbox is used only for public and followers delivery, ev...
cwebber2: I want to get a sense
as to what people, especially eprodrom, think about this
... is this reasonable to put in the spec, should we do this
with an Undo, a Reject, etc.
eprodrom: we have an activity
type called Block which is specifically to implement social
media block
... it seems to me what would happen in that situation
... on the sender's server you'd expect to have that kind of
mechanism
... on the receiving server things get trickier, it's
advisory
... if alice and bob are both on example.com and charlie is on
foo.example and charlie blocks bob
... foo.example will still be sending updates to example.com
because of alice
... the expected behavior for example.com is that it not show
that info to bob, but if it's hostile it could do that
<cwebber2> https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/activitypub-implicit-explit
cwebber2: you've got it
exactly
... one of the things we discussed on this call is that there
are two separate things covered by Block and they're
separate
... some people want to send a Block-type thing across the wire
to say "don't send my stuff to this person"
... some people don't want to send something across the network
for safety reasons
... we separated out an ignore-style block and retroactively
undoing a follow
... we want to separate these cleanly into two different
things
<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/242#issuecomment-315645158
<Loqi> [strugee] Link to the Etherpad from the Mumble call: https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/activitypub-implicit-explit
<Loqi> Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this was the consensus:
<Loqi> 1. sharedInbox is used only for public and followers delivery, ev...
cwebber2: if you look at the
issue summary it'd make it so you never have to federate a
Block
... the only thing you'd end up federating is the other one
(the "don't forward stuff to the follower's inbox" type
thing)
... and you could choose whether to do that or not
... does that make sense that there's two separate actions
here?
eprodrom: no
... I don't see the point in teasing out two different things
when there's already Block
... it's a single activity type and you could just do it
... I don't see what the additional complexity buys you
cwebber2: scenario from
Gargron:
... people push the block button and then unclick it
... they call this a "soft-block"
... it stops the soft-blocked person from following them but
still allows them to interact with posts
... the scenario here is that you don't want them to see the
private messages you're sending out to friends and family, but
you don't mind if they interact with your posts
eprodrom: currently sends a block
and an undo block right?
... I've been writing social software for 10 years and I don't
care about this usecase
cwebber2: the motivator is that
currently in our spec for a reason we decided to say don't
federate a Block
... we don't want to put people in danger of knowing that
they're blocked by somebody
... this is a problem because of the way Mastodon does
delivery
... it's an explicit vs implicit problem
eprodrom: my opinion is not only
should you federate blocks this is not a good idea
... complicated and messy and I don't get it
... I don't see why you wouldn't federate blocks
... wait
<eprodrom> +0
<ajordan> my audio is totally screwed
<sandro> eprodrom: I don't want to think about this
<ajordan> I'm gonna have to redial
<sandro> eprodrom: you want to make a proposal?
<sandro> cwebber2: not a lot of people on the call
<sandro> eprodrom: I think I understand why you're trying to not federate blocks, but I don't find it motivating
sandro: you implicitly asked my
opinion
... my opinion is that Mastodon users are the bulk of
decentralized social media
... by 10 to 1
... so we should pay attention to their usecases
eprodrom: that's a compelling
argument sir
... cwebber2 what do you want to do here
cwebber2: I'd like to draft up an
actual PR to describe how this is done
... I got a sense about how you feel about it which was my main
goal here
... I'll just draft up a PR, we'll see how it is after it's
drafted
... I'll also need to draft up a PR given the accept/reject
convo we had earlier
sandro: I hope you mean pushing something to the editor's draft with a note so people don't have to dig through GitHub
cwebber2: uhhh yeah I could do that
eprodrom: thanks for taking extra
time here, let's plan on talking next week
... cwebber2 do you feel like we need a bit of extra time next
week?
... I'll circulate 90 minutes
cwebber2: that would be appreciated
eprodrom: I'll do that then
<cwebber2> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/private/shared/ Succeeded: s/saying/seeing/ Succeeded: s/validator impl reports/validator, sample set, implementation reports/ FAILED: s/???eprodrom// Default Present: cwebber, jaywink, ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, eprodro, ajordan, tantek, sandro, aaronpk Present: cwebber jaywink ben_thatmustbeme rhiaro eprodro ajordan tantek sandro aaronpk cwebber2 eprodro57 Found ScribeNick: cwebber2 Found ScribeNick: ben_thatmustbeme Found ScribeNick: cwebber2 Found ScribeNick: ajordan Inferring Scribes: cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme, ajordan Scribes: cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme, ajordan ScribeNicks: cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme, ajordan WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 18 Jul 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/07/18-social-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]