IRC log of social on 2017-08-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:01:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:01:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:01:46 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:01:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:01:48 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:01:48 [trackbot]
Date: 15 August 2017
17:01:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:01:54 [rhiaro]
17:01:57 [tantek]
17:01:59 [aaronpk]
17:02:02 [ajordan]
17:02:03 [sandro]
17:02:10 [tsyesika]
17:02:36 [ajordan]
hold on I'll look up how to do it
17:03:13 [cwebber2]
17:03:35 [ajordan]
okay let's do this thing
17:03:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Chair: tantek
17:03:46 [tantek]
17:03:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i can scribe in the mean time
17:03:54 [ajordan]
TOPIC: minutes
17:03:56 [tantek]
scribenick: ajordan
17:04:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:04:41 [tantek]
PROPOSED: approve minutes
17:04:44 [ajordan]
17:04:48 [rhiaro]
17:05:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:05:18 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
17:05:23 [eprodrom]
17:05:39 [wilkie]
17:05:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
most important part is to review for resolutions that you might not have been there for and want to raise issue with i believe
17:06:30 [aaronpk]
17:06:31 [cwebber2]
17:07:00 [eprodrom]
17:07:08 [ajordan]
tantek: I'll declare the minutes resolved; I'll have to read about the yak shaving later
17:07:13 [ajordan]
... is that meta yak shaving?
17:07:34 [ajordan]
RESOLVED: PROPOSED: approve minutes
17:07:46 [ajordan]
oh dear
17:07:56 [eprodrom]
we hereby resolve to propose to resolve...
17:07:57 [ajordan]
RESOLVED: approve minutes
17:08:14 [ajordan]
17:08:23 [ajordan]
tantek: let's start with ActivityPub
17:08:28 [ajordan]
... cwebber2: how's it doing?
17:08:38 [ajordan]
cwebber2: good news! test suite is up at last and I can demo it live
17:08:40 [eprodrom]
17:08:44 [cwebber2]
17:08:49 [sandro]
woo hoo Chris!
17:08:51 [ajordan]
... last two weeks I was complaining about yak shaving, I had to fix stuff in my language
17:08:52 [cwebber2]
17:08:57 [ajordan]
... I have a terrible plunger in place
17:08:57 [cwebber2]
17:09:09 [ajordan]
... you can visit this, put in this username, and give this token
17:10:02 [Loqi]
Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-08-15]]
17:10:09 [eprodrom]
Wonderful job cwebber2!
17:10:15 [eprodrom]
17:10:17 [ajordan]
cwebber2: things are working for c2s and s2s
17:10:24 [eprodrom]
cwebber2++ imts
17:10:24 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 97 karma
17:10:33 [ajordan]
... c2s and ??? has to be done but I have the general framework and am moving forward
17:10:43 [ajordan]
... even better news, apparently Mastodon has AP mostly implemented
17:10:50 [ajordan]
... they are working on testing things out now and that's also good news
17:10:51 [eprodrom]
17:11:04 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
17:11:05 [ajordan]
... things are moving along, 2/3 good news things but I'll pause for Evan
17:11:23 [ajordan]
eprodrom: cwebber2 I want to make sure, Mastodon is just doing the s2s protocol right?
17:11:26 [ajordan]
cwebber2: correct
17:11:32 [ajordan]
eprodrom: so we can't test what Mastodon is doing
17:11:48 [ajordan]
cwebber2: yes, I've tested puck's stuff and have seen things succeeding and failing for logical reasons
17:11:51 [ajordan]
eprodrom: fantastic news
17:12:10 [ajordan]
cwebber2: anyway I'll work on getting the s2s tests, I'll try to prioritize those over c2s especially because of Mastodon
17:12:13 [ajordan]
tantek: one more clarification
17:12:27 [ajordan]
... the tests, in the UI there was the c2s test and the s2s test and then a separate federation test?
17:12:31 [cwebber2]
17:12:38 [ajordan]
cwebber2: these are the different spec profiles in the AP spec
17:13:10 [ajordan]
... c2s client -> clientside, c2s server -> API, s2s API
17:13:20 [ajordan]
... currently working on c2s because that's the easiest to do
17:13:38 [ajordan]
... I wanted to make sure I did the one that gave me confidence things were working
17:13:53 [ajordan]
tantek: so you have the c2s clientside ones done?
17:13:59 [ajordan]
cwebber2: it's the c2s server ones
17:14:27 [ajordan]
... there's some server stuff worked in there because clients can do some addressing and they don't know if it works, so that's marked as unknown
17:14:38 [ajordan]
tantek: re: other variants, do you have an estimate? next week or two?
17:15:00 [ajordan]
cwebber2: trying to go as fast as I can, it's difficult because I'm best man in a wedding
17:15:16 [ajordan]
... think we'll have s2s tests up within the next month and client tests should be really fast to do after that
17:15:38 [ajordan]
tantek: let's do that third thing
17:15:50 [ajordan]
cwebber2: I wanted to publish a new... there've been some non-normative change
17:16:04 [ajordan]
... and we've talked about some normative changes
17:16:04 [cwebber2]
17:16:15 [cwebber2]
17:16:25 [ajordan]
... thought it would be good to publish a CR with a lot of non-normative typo fixes before that
17:16:42 [ajordan]
... these are all non-normative changes
17:16:51 [ajordan]
... some stuff added to the security considerations but those are non-normative
17:17:01 [ajordan]
... fixed some typos of "actor" as "author"
17:17:19 [ajordan]
tantek: that sounds like a good idea, it's been four months so that's another reason
17:17:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2, note that some of those changes are duplicates
17:17:36 [ajordan]
... these changes are all non-normative and won't affect implementations?
17:17:43 [tantek]
17:17:52 [ajordan]
cwebber2: yes, security considerations might affect implementations but they're non-normative
17:18:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
remove last two entries in that change log (duplicates) :P
17:18:21 [eprodrom]
someone using an IBM Model M keyboard?
17:18:51 [eprodrom]
17:18:59 [tantek]
PROPOSED: Publish an updated AP CR with only editorial/non-normative changes
17:19:29 [tantek]
also: s/E.1 Changes from 13 April 2017 to present/E.1 Changes from 9 May 2017 to present
17:19:47 [cwebber2]
17:19:50 [ajordan]
17:19:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:20:00 [tsyesika]
17:20:06 [rhiaro]
17:20:10 [eprodrom]
17:20:10 [ajordan]
I'm not seeing the Apr. 13 change showing up on GitHub Pages?
17:20:20 [rhiaro]
yeah I'll take care of it
17:20:26 [ajordan]
s/I'm not/<ajordan> I'm not/
17:20:27 [aaronpk]
17:20:32 [cwebber2]
ajordan, ???
17:21:01 [ajordan]
tantek: I think because it's a CR we still need staff to turn the cranks for us
17:21:35 [ajordan]
... I think we noted that in the agenda, presumably rhiaro... yeah August 22nd publications resume
17:21:48 [ajordan]
... because it's a CR we have to send an email for approval to update
17:21:51 [rhiaro]
that should be okay
17:21:59 [ajordan]
... rhiaro do you think you could do that?
17:22:00 [ajordan]
RESOLVED: Publish an updated AP CR with only editorial/non-normative changes
17:22:10 [ajordan]
cwebber2: so do I basically email rhiaro?
17:22:14 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: just remind me if I forget
17:22:19 [ajordan]
tantek: I believe rhiaro said she was just going to take care of it
17:22:38 [ajordan]
... so we'll expect that published Tuesday morning of next week
17:22:46 [ajordan]
... we don't have a meeting but at least something happens for us!
17:22:53 [ajordan]
... any issues you wanted to discuss for normative changes?
17:23:07 [ajordan]
cwebber2: no, I want to make changes that we discussed last meeting and then discuss those
17:23:14 [ajordan]
... I've been pretty busy with the test suite
17:23:20 [ajordan]
tantek: have new issues come up?
17:23:24 [ajordan]
cwebber2: no, not really
17:23:45 [ajordan]
tantek: I notice informally you've been steering people towards extensions, that's good for the CG
17:23:49 [ajordan]
... that takes us to WebSub
17:23:53 [ajordan]
17:24:06 [ajordan]
tantek: okay, aaronpk, how are we doing with websub?
17:24:26 [ajordan]
... I believe last time we met we discussed waiting until about now to collect impl. reports for trying to transition
17:24:38 [ajordan]
aaronpk: Google submitted an implementation report
17:24:49 [ajordan]
... so now has a report in here
17:24:58 [ajordan]
... it's their official hub and it passes all the tests
17:24:58 [aaronpk]
17:25:03 [ajordan]
... they used the test suite to confirm everything
17:25:06 [ajordan]
... here's their report
17:25:20 [ajordan]
... this morning tantek snuck in a report for Falcon, as a publisher
17:25:26 [ajordan]
... so we're doing pretty good on number of reports now
17:25:42 [ajordan]
tantek: great, I have this vague memory of Gargron doing a live impl. report in IRC for Mastodon
17:25:48 [ajordan]
... does someone have a ??? for that?
17:25:56 [tantek]
17:26:02 [ajordan]
aaronpk: good question, I don't remember the date but I do remember him braindumping a report into IRC
17:26:10 [ajordan]
... just doing a checklist on IRC instead of GitHub
17:26:13 [ajordan]
... it's in the logs somewhere
17:26:21 [ajordan]
... once I find that I'll convert it into a proper report on GitHub
17:26:28 [ajordan]
tantek: was that selfreported or did he use the test suite?
17:26:40 [ajordan]
aaronpk: I believe selfreported cause he was doing it pretty quickly
17:26:53 [ajordan]
... he thought it would be a quick thing, just fill out the report, but it wasn't
17:27:07 [ajordan]
tantek: we need to decide as a group if we're ready to ask for PR transition
17:27:16 [ajordan]
... sandro, any updates on when it'd be good to start that ball rolling?
17:27:25 [ajordan]
... now? can we do it in two weeks? September?
17:27:39 [ajordan]
sandro: I think we're a while from the deadline but I don't see a reason to wait
17:28:02 [ajordan]
tantek: I thought we were waiting for the Google report and the Mastodon report so assuming aaronpk can dig up that IRC report I think that satisfies the previous conditions we had set
17:28:31 [ajordan]
... for past CR to PR transitions we've started a wiki page for the specs we had to do that for with a bunch of different items to make sure we'd done
17:28:39 [ajordan]
... aaronpk you should start that, if you haven't already
17:28:54 [tantek]
17:28:55 [ajordan]
... that's transition request I belive, it's got a bunch of fields you have to fill out/qs to answer
17:29:06 [ajordan]
... let's open the floor to discussing if the group thinks we're ready to take WebSub to PR
17:29:14 [ajordan]
... anyone have any objections?
17:30:18 [ajordan]
... actually before I ask that, aaronpk are there any outstanding normative issues we need to resolve?
17:30:21 [ajordan]
... that really should be zero
17:30:26 [ajordan]
aaronpk: there's a couple things open for discussion
17:30:38 [ajordan]
... there's a note from tantek from this morning about clarifying the publisher relationship
17:30:47 [ajordan]
... more explicitly documenting that there isn't anything specified
17:30:52 [ajordan]
... not normative obviously
17:30:53 [tantek]
17:31:14 [tantek]
17:31:15 [Loqi]
[julien51] #110 Topics
17:31:16 [ajordan]
tantek: so looking at this list... there's something about topics, is that a feature request?
17:31:19 [ajordan]
aaronpk: yeah
17:31:35 [ajordan]
tantek: presumably that's for a future version? or are we trying to figure out how the spec could implement it as-is
17:31:45 [ajordan]
aaronpk: I think it's a new enough thing it'd be better as a future version
17:31:57 [ajordan]
... especially if our goal is to keep things compliant with PuSH
17:32:08 [ajordan]
tantek: any other opinions, has anyone else had a chance to look at this issue?
17:32:23 [ajordan]
... we'll I'll ask for a group resolution based on that
17:32:38 [tantek]
PROPOSED: Accept websub issue 110 as a future feature request, not for current version of WebSub.
17:32:55 [aaronpk]
17:33:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:33:03 [ajordan]
17:33:10 [eprodrom]
17:33:13 [tsyesika]
17:33:20 [rhiaro]
17:33:35 [ajordan]
RESOLVED: Accept websub issue 110 as a future feature request, not for current version of WebSub.
17:33:41 [cwebber2]
+0.5 (sounds good but i haven't thought about it much)
17:33:49 [ajordan]
tantek: aaronpk if you could update that issue commenting the resolution that'd be great
17:34:07 [ajordan]
... I saw the other issue from Manton
17:34:14 [ajordan]
... looks like a doc issue rather than a change-the-spec issue
17:34:28 [ajordan]
aaronpk: it was a change-the-spec issue but at the end he said there wasn't a conflict like he thought
17:34:36 [tantek]
17:34:37 [Loqi]
[Alkarex] #106 Suggestion: Use HTTP 410 Gone
17:34:41 [ajordan]
tantek: that then takes us to 410 Gone? where did we end with that
17:35:00 [ajordan]
aaronpk: this resulted in a change that we added a while ago so we're just waiting for the commenter to confirm that then
17:35:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:35:08 [ajordan]
tantek: okay, so nothing outstanding for us to do then
17:35:08 [Loqi]
[dissolve] #118 add implementation report on diasporas behalf
17:35:26 [ajordan]
tantek: looks like the last thing we have in normative is the... oh!
17:35:32 [tantek]
17:35:33 [Loqi]
[aaronpk] #97 Discussion for Host-Meta feature At Risk
17:35:38 [ajordan]
... host-meta feature?
17:35:50 [ajordan]
... left it open deliberately to try to see if anyone still cares
17:36:01 [ajordan]
... we have to resolve this before going to PR, that's what the CR period is for
17:36:07 [ajordan]
... what's the proposed resolution for this one?
17:36:26 [ajordan]
aaronpk: right now there are a couple votes in support of dropping it, haven't seen much discussion in support of it except for Julien's last comment about leaving it
17:36:44 [ajordan]
tantek: did we get any hints from impl. feedback... did anyone check the "we implement this" box for host-meta?
17:36:49 [ajordan]
... that's the evidence we should be using
17:36:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
no publishers
17:36:52 [ajordan]
aaronpk: lemme check
17:37:26 [ajordan]
... ironically we have the least amount of reports from subscribers, which is where this would come in
17:37:32 [ajordan]
tantek: well I think it would be publishers depending on it
17:37:35 [ajordan]
aaronpk: true
17:37:42 [ajordan]
... these three publishers do not publish at all on host-meta
17:37:50 [ajordan]
tantek: so not only do they not depend on it, they don't support it at all
17:37:59 [ajordan]
aaronpk: correct, none of the three have advertised the hub via host-meta
17:38:04 [ajordan]
sandro: well it's just that they don't use it
17:38:12 [ajordan]
... not a surprise they don't implement it if they don't want
17:38:25 [ajordan]
aaronpk: the need for this would be if a publisher was *only* able to publish via host-meta
17:38:31 [ajordan]
... that's the current argument for keeping it in the spec
17:38:49 [ajordan]
... currently in the three reports none of them even advertise host-meta, much less depend on it
17:39:01 [ajordan]
sandro: well they wouldn't advertise it if they need it?
17:39:17 [ajordan]
aaronpk: well you advertise which one you use
17:39:24 [ajordan]
sandro: well you can't bootstrap out of nothing
17:39:37 [ajordan]
... can't rely on host-meta if no one supports it
17:39:42 [ajordan]
17:39:58 [ajordan]
aaronpk: as a publisher you can advertise your publisher, _always_, with any of them
17:40:31 [ajordan]
sandro: only reason for host-meta is for publishers who can *only* do host-meta
17:40:50 [ajordan]
tantek: I thought for some reason diaspora did but the impl. report that ben_thatmustbeme just submitted doesn't have it?
17:40:50 [tantek]
FYI Diaspora report:
17:41:05 [ajordan]
aaronpk: Mastodon uses webfinger for other things but not for hub discovery
17:41:17 [ajordan]
tantek: okay so people use host-meta for other things but not for websub
17:41:44 [ajordan]
tantek: okay, at this point there seems to be overwhelming evidence there's not even an indication of implementors
17:42:00 [ajordan]
sandro: I think there's evidence people would want it but there's no way to do it
17:42:06 [ajordan]
... you can't bootstrap this yourself
17:42:17 [ajordan]
... I think it would be a good thing but I think we should probably drop it
17:42:35 [ajordan]
tantek: I have a difference of opinion on experiments sandro but generally I agree with you
17:42:49 [ajordan]
... e.g. supporting random feed formats no one consumes yet has been known to happen
17:42:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
doesn't pubsubhubbub support it, and so any existing subscribers from push 0.4 would have supported host-meta
17:43:06 [tantek]
PROPOSED: close issue 97 with dropping at-risk host-meta feature from WebSub
17:43:08 [Loqi]
[aaronpk] #97 Discussion for Host-Meta feature At Risk
17:43:11 [cwebber2]
17:43:19 [wilkie]
17:43:26 [eprodrom]
17:43:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:43:38 [ajordan]
17:43:41 [rhiaro]
+0 no opinion
17:43:49 [sandro]
+1 sadly not seeing alternative
17:44:00 [aaronpk]
17:44:10 [ajordan]
RESOLVED: close issue 97 with dropping at-risk host-meta feature from WebSub
17:44:11 [Loqi]
[aaronpk] #97 Discussion for Host-Meta feature At Risk
17:44:26 [ajordan]
tantek: aaronpk go ahead and note the summary on the issue and make the edits to the spec
17:44:27 [ajordan]
aaronpk: ok
17:44:41 [ajordan]
tantek: ok, that takes us to... I think that's it for the normative issues on WebSub?
17:44:46 [ajordan]
... anyone know of any other normative issues?
17:44:53 [ajordan]
... before we discuss PR transition?
17:45:18 [ajordan]
... are there any normative changes outside of issues you wanted to bring up?
17:45:24 [ajordan]
aaronpk: I don't think so, lemme check the draft thought
17:45:27 [ajordan]
17:45:45 [ajordan]
tantek: cause I would expect the Director to do a diff
17:45:53 [ajordan]
aaronpk: yeah we've talked about all the changes we've done so far
17:45:58 [ajordan]
... they've been captured as issues
17:46:01 [ajordan]
tantek: okay, good
17:46:17 [ajordan]
... so the only new issue is the one I brought up
17:46:27 [ajordan]
... I can ask Evan to chair for this one since I brought it up but it's informative
17:46:32 [tantek]
chair: Evan
17:46:34 [ajordan]
... but we can talk about it in case it has normative impact
17:46:37 [tantek]
17:46:38 [Loqi]
[tantek] #117 informative NOTE pub->hub protocol unspecified, and examples
17:46:39 [ajordan]
eprodrom: okay, yeah
17:46:53 [ajordan]
... so, could you explain what the issue is tantek?
17:47:08 [ajordan]
tantek: if you look at seciton 6 it has one very short paragraph on what publishers should do
17:47:55 [ajordan]
... I requested an informative note making it clear that the pub->hub protocol is left unspecified, and explicitly say what some public hubs have been doing
17:48:07 [ajordan]
... which is to send a POST request with some well-known key names
17:48:35 [ajordan]
eprodrom: I think this is because we have previously-existing PuSH versions where this was their mechanism for pubisher notification right?
17:48:52 [ajordan]
aaronpk: what's happened with the spec is that it never specified how publishers verify hubs because some publishers integrate into hubs
17:49:03 [ajordan]
... like when it's built into your blog, so you don't need an external API
17:49:15 [ajordan]
... Superfeedr and Google happen to implement the same API because they're both external hubs
17:49:25 [ajordan]
... those are the two links tantek dropped into the issue, for service docs
17:49:40 [ajordan]
... it's sort of become a de facto standard because public hubs do it that way
17:49:51 [ajordan]
... best thing we can do is say "this is what the situation is"
17:49:58 [ajordan]
... but we can't make it required without breaking things
17:50:13 [cwebber2]
17:50:14 [ajordan]
eprodrom: can we mention a mechanism for doing things specific ways and what the parameters are
17:50:24 [ajordan]
... even if we say this is unspecified but this is how you do it... is that a spec
17:50:32 [ajordan]
... it seems simple and pretty clear is the question there
17:50:58 [ajordan]
cwebber2: I just noticed in some specs I've been reviewing they've been doing it's RECOMMENDED... instead of SHOULD or whatever you can do RECOMMENDED
17:51:06 [ajordan]
... that seems like a good way to shove people in the right direction
17:51:22 [ajordan]
sandro: RECOMMENDED is defined as a synonym of SHOULD in RFC2119
17:51:27 [ajordan]
cwebber2: nvm then
17:51:43 [ajordan]
aaronpk: I'd like ???, not sure if we can do that
17:51:52 [ajordan]
eprodrom: I'd like if it was normative, it seems pretty straightforward
17:51:59 [ajordan]
... you'd need some kind of definition as to what that means
17:52:08 [aaronpk]
s/???/it to be a normative part of the spec if that situation applies to you/
17:52:10 [ajordan]
... my question is, we're in CR right now, we'd be adding an additional "module" to WebSub
17:52:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
personally i would prefer to see it as a seperate note of ways it has been done
17:52:16 [ajordan]
... but it feels like the right time to do it
17:52:32 [ajordan]
tantek: the reason I raised this issue was, I was filing my impl. report and going through all the steps
17:52:44 [ben_thatmustbeme] uses hub.url instead of hub.topic for example
17:52:47 [ajordan]
... and I realized as I got to the last step that what I was doing wasn't in the spec
17:52:55 [ajordan]
... realized I was following docs from public hubs
17:53:03 [ajordan]
... made sense to at least mention that that documentation exists
17:53:15 [aaronpk]
ben_thatmustbeme, both superfeedr and google use hub.url
17:53:20 [ajordan]
... but trying to be conservative and not add normative text, instead just ack the current situation
17:53:31 [ajordan]
... I would be _for_ normative text in a *future* WebSub version
17:53:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i also was working on a hub implementation that uses webmention instead of that methods
17:53:52 [ajordan]
... if it gets more uptake and there are no objections... all the usual spec iteration stuff that involve the broader community, I could see it going into a 1.1
17:54:01 [ajordan]
... in particular I'd like Julien's opinion on any normative change
17:54:16 [ajordan]
... I felt it was still valuable to include an informative short note, stating reality
17:54:24 [ajordan]
eprodrom: could I propose a second path? we could have a separate document
17:54:26 [ajordan]
... a Note
17:54:39 [ajordan]
... that defines what the state of the world on pub to hub protocol and refer to that document from here
17:54:48 [ajordan]
... the advantage being that could evolve separately
17:55:03 [ajordan]
aaronpk: I support the idea of a Note for specifying that relationship, I think tantek's right that the spec should say *something*
17:55:13 [ajordan]
... "it's unspecified, for example here's one way you could do it"
17:55:21 [ajordan]
... as a reader you're not missing something, it really is not here
17:55:36 [ajordan]
eprodrom: do we think we'll be further standardizing this interface?
17:55:45 [ajordan]
aaronpk: yeah as a separate future document or as a Note or something
17:55:49 [ajordan]
tantek: or as a 1.1
17:56:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1 to both a note inline as "this is unspecified, but here is one way that has been used"
17:56:07 [ajordan]
eprodrom: for me I'm wondering at one point do we begin the little branch/bud that will become pubhub
17:56:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
and +1 to a later Note doc
17:56:22 [ajordan]
... do we note it here and link to it or just leave it as "two hubs do it this way" and that's it
17:56:27 [ajordan]
tantek: we could do both
17:56:45 [ajordan]
... how we capture this kind of protocol, whether it's in a 1.1 or a new pubsub spec
17:56:51 [ajordan]
... I'm ok with either option in whatever form
17:57:03 [ajordan]
... but I think that doesn't preclude us at least mentioning the state of where things are
17:57:07 [ajordan]
... that section in the spec is so short
17:57:19 [ajordan]
... it makes reading the spec seem like there's something missing if we don't say anything here
17:57:23 [ajordan]
eprodrom: that makes sense
17:57:26 [tantek]
17:57:30 [ajordan]
... I'm just feeling like this is great CG work
17:57:51 [ajordan]
... I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle that off
17:58:01 [Loqi]
17:58:39 [ajordan]
aaronpk: I think I would prefer to add this text as-is instead of preemptively linking to something that doesn't exist yet
17:58:52 [ajordan]
... let's plan on writing that but in the meantime this seems useful
17:59:05 [ajordan]
eprodrom: sounds good, aaronpk I assume you'll do some wordsmithing on here
17:59:23 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: close by accepting and including informative note as written
17:59:24 [Loqi]
[tantek] #117 informative NOTE pub->hub protocol unspecified, and examples
17:59:33 [tantek]
17:59:39 [eprodrom]
17:59:40 [aaronpk]
17:59:45 [sandro]
17:59:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:00:01 [ajordan]
18:00:07 [rhiaro]
18:00:13 [wilkie]
18:00:15 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: close by accepting and including informative note as written
18:00:15 [Loqi]
[tantek] #117 informative NOTE pub->hub protocol unspecified, and examples
18:00:34 [ajordan]
eprodrom: I'd like to hand the floor back to tantek unless there's something else you need?
18:00:37 [ajordan]
tantek: that was it!
18:00:46 [ajordan]
... just wanted to get all that on the record
18:01:08 [ajordan]
... I believe that's enough to close all the normative issues on websub
18:01:14 [ajordan]
... most of which we've just been waiting on
18:01:25 [ajordan]
... and to make sure that informative issues don't have any normative implications
18:01:38 [ajordan]
... already talked about impl. reports, got enough for publishers and subscribers
18:01:43 [ajordan]
... how many?
18:01:49 [ajordan]
aaronpk: 5 hubs, 3 subscribers, 2 publishers
18:01:58 [ajordan]
... not counting Mastodon's since I haven't officially filed that one yet
18:02:05 [ajordan]
tantek: and the diaspora one that ben_thatmustbeme filed during the telecon
18:02:16 [ajordan]
aaronpk: yeah the diaspora one too, that's a publisher. that makes 3 publishers now
18:02:21 [ajordan]
tantek: I thought that was true, great
18:02:25 [ajordan]
... let's propose the transition
18:03:14 [ajordan]
aaronpk: sorry, got that mixed up - 5 hubs, 3 publishers, and now 3 subscribers with... I can't count
18:03:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
5 hubs, 3 publishers, 2 subscribers
18:03:40 [ajordan]
tantek: did Mastodon submit as a publisher? as a hub?
18:03:41 [aaronpk]
18:03:42 [ajordan]
aaronpk: I don't remember
18:03:47 [ajordan]
... I just merged ben_thatmustbeme's
18:03:47 [aaronpk]
5 hubs 4 publishers 2 subscribers
18:04:07 [tantek]
PROPOSED: with edits agreed during telcon, transition WebSub from CR to PR, with aaronpk writing up transition request on the wiki
18:04:14 [tantek]
18:04:20 [cwebber2]
18:04:30 [aaronpk]
18:04:34 [ajordan]
18:04:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:04:49 [eprodrom]
18:05:21 [cwebber2]
18:05:26 [wilkie]
18:05:41 [sandro]
18:05:45 [rhiaro]
18:05:53 [ajordan]
RESOLVED: with edits agreed during telcon, transition WebSub from CR to PR, with aaronpk writing up transition request on the wiki
18:06:06 [ajordan]
tantek: congrats everyone, this is a pretty big transition
18:06:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
18:06:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: Post Type Discovery
18:07:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i don't have anything new on that, i did publish the new draft as agreed
18:07:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:07:44 [ajordan]
18:07:56 [tantek]
ack ajordan
18:08:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
<ben_thatmustbeme> no real updates, just editorial updates thanks to ajordan
18:08:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
ajordan: i have a bunch of other changes queued up on paper, and I don't think i have any normative changes
18:09:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i'll leave it to the editor to request an updated WD when he feels its ready
18:09:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... maybe in 2 weeks
18:09:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
ben_thatmustbeme: that sounds good
18:09:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
ajordan: i'll bring in those changes soon
18:09:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: Social Web Protocols
18:10:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: amy, anything you want to give the group a heads up about?
18:10:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i don't think i have made any changes since the last update to document status
18:10:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: sounds like that is gated on when we get the websub PR
18:10:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: Any other documents
18:10:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: anything?
18:11:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: Incubator CG
18:11:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: we have a call tomorrow, i also had a call with another group that is using AS in a really large way, and they are joining the CG
18:11:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... as i said, we have a call tomorrow, so it would be great for people to show up
18:12:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: any other topics?
18:12:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: thanks everyone for showing up, some major progress
18:12:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... with the transition of websub to PR, we are just waiting on the progress on AP and getting that to PR
18:13:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... reminder, we have no call next week
18:13:14 [tantek]
18:13:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
our next call is 8/29, i believe i am chairing that one as well
18:13:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
hope to see some of you tomorrow at the CG, otherwise see you in 2 weeks
18:13:48 [ajordan]
18:13:48 [Loqi]
ben_thatmustbeme has 82 karma in this channel (251 overall)
18:14:21 [tantek]
17 min early from our extended telcon period!
18:14:31 [tantek]
ajordan++ for scribing
18:14:31 [Loqi]
ajordan has 16 karma in this channel (17 overall)
18:14:32 [ajordan]
aaronpk: lemme look up the phone number thing for you
18:14:35 [tantek]
trackbot, end meeting
18:14:35 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:14:35 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, tantek, aaronpk, ajordan, sandro, tsyesika, cwebber, eprodrom
18:14:43 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:14:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:14:44 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:14:44 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items