IRC log of social on 2017-08-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:03:29 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:03:29 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/08/29-social-irc
17:03:31 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:03:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:03:33 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:03:33 [trackbot]
Date: 29 August 2017
17:03:38 [sandro]
+sandro
17:03:42 [tantek]
present+
17:03:43 [rhiaro]
present+
17:03:44 [ajordan_]
present+ ajordan
17:03:54 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:54 [Zakim]
Present: sandro, tantek, rhiaro, ajordan
17:03:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, ajordan_, tantek, cdchapman, timbl, KjetilK__, xmpp-social, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, dwhly, jankusanagi_, Loqi, bigbluehat, jet, rhiaro, Gargron, dlongley,
17:03:56 [Zakim]
... cwebber2, oshepherd, bwn, nightpool, trackbot, MMN-o, csarven, jaywink, sknebel, tsyesika, astronouth7303, puckipedia, raucao, tcit, mattl, DenSchub, saranix, aaronpk, bitbear,
17:03:56 [Zakim]
... albino, sandro
17:04:03 [ajordan]
ajordan has joined #social
17:04:06 [cwebber2]
present+
17:05:12 [ajordan_]
ajordan_ has left #social
17:05:26 [tsyesika]
present+
17:05:39 [tantek]
tantek has changed the topic to: Next: SWWG telcon https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-08-29, SWICG telcon https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2017-08-30 logs: https://chat.indieweb.org/social
17:07:07 [sandro]
scribe: sandro
17:07:10 [tantek]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-08-15-minutes
17:08:28 [cwebber2]
+1
17:08:43 [sandro]
+1
17:09:04 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-08-15-minutes as last week's minutes
17:09:13 [cwebber2]
+1
17:09:14 [rhiaro]
+1
17:09:31 [cwebber2]
last week as in the last week we had a call ;)
17:09:54 [tsyesika]
+1
17:09:59 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-08-15-minutes as last week's minutes
17:10:02 [Loqi]
Cwebber2 made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2017-08-29]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=104106&oldid=104101
17:10:02 [Loqi]
Sandro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-08-29]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=104105&oldid=104104
17:10:17 [ajordan]
+1
17:10:24 [sandro]
topic: September meetings
17:11:16 [sandro]
tantek: question 1 - every week or every other week. question 2 - 60 or 90 minute meetings
17:11:24 [ajordan]
q+
17:11:34 [rhiaro]
I can't make next week, but don't let me stop anyone else
17:11:37 [tantek]
ack ajordan
17:12:07 [sandro]
ajordan: It seems to me we've getting more done in 90 minute meetings. I'd rather have more meetings now and relax later, then be squeezing things in before the deadline
17:12:31 [sandro]
aj: so I suppose I'm suggesting weekly 90 mins
17:13:02 [ajordan]
I mean even this week the agenda is super long
17:13:32 [sandro]
sandro: Sounds okay to me, but I'm not paged in on agenda
17:13:41 [cwebber2]
q+
17:13:49 [tantek]
ack cwebber2
17:14:22 [sandro]
cwebber2: I have mixed feelings. I think biweekly 90 minute is pretty good. I wouldn't want biweekly 60.
17:15:05 [sandro]
tantek: the two weeks blocks seemed productive, that was my impression
17:15:35 [cwebber2]
q+
17:15:37 [sandro]
tantek: Did anyone feel like we would have gotten more done if we met every week?
17:15:58 [sandro]
tantek: From chairs perspective, every two weeks felt more focused, less tedious
17:16:07 [tantek]
ack cwebber2
17:16:22 [ajordan]
I know I suggested weekly but I don't feel strongly against biweekly
17:16:25 [ajordan]
+1 timeboxing
17:17:06 [sandro]
cwebber2: Lets do 90 minute bi-weekly, but if run low on time, we can fill in the intermediate meeting
17:17:23 [tsyesika]
+1 on chris' suggestion :)
17:17:31 [sandro]
tantek: Didn't hear anything from Evan about this.
17:17:44 [sandro]
tantek: But let's meet next week for websub
17:17:59 [cwebber2]
that's good with me
17:18:05 [sandro]
tantek: so biweekly starting the 6tg
17:18:42 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Biweekly up-to-90-minute meetings, starting Sept 6, with the option of filling in the missing weeks if we have lots to talk about
17:18:45 [cwebber2]
+1
17:18:51 [sandro]
+1
17:19:04 [ajordan]
+1
17:19:13 [rhiaro]
+1
17:19:16 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Biweekly up-to-90-minute meetings, starting Sept 6, with the option of filling in the missing weeks if we have lots to talk about
17:19:32 [sandro]
topic: Inviting more implementors
17:20:21 [rhiaro]
q+
17:21:05 [tantek]
ack cwebber
17:21:26 [tantek]
ack r
17:21:27 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
17:21:54 [ajordan]
q+
17:22:00 [sandro]
rhiaro: It kind of looks better to have impls from outside the group
17:22:10 [ajordan]
q-
17:22:15 [sandro]
cwebber2: I don't actually know if it would speed the process
17:22:51 [sandro]
tantek: I worry a little that these meeting details might dampen their energy
17:23:15 [sandro]
topic: AS2
17:24:09 [sandro]
cwebber2: I wanted to make sure the spec for adding extensions ...... assuming the CG voted to add something ....
17:24:26 [sandro]
cwebber2: Do we talk to Amy to get it committed?
17:24:35 [rhiaro]
The process should not be tied to a named person!
17:24:53 [ajordan]
second question: what do CGs even have authority to publish? Notes? nothing REC-track I'm assuming
17:25:56 [rhiaro]
ajordan: correct
17:26:03 [ajordan]
rhiaro: thanks
17:27:12 [sandro]
sandro: two obvious options: w3c staff or github repo
17:27:26 [rhiaro]
q+
17:27:28 [sandro]
sandro: slight concern if/when Amy and I leave the staff
17:27:45 [sandro]
tantek: governance for repo
17:28:46 [rhiaro]
q-
17:28:52 [rhiaro]
I was gonna vaguely handwave what sandro is saying
17:29:19 [ajordan]
if we go with the GitHub repo it would make sense to me to set Evan/Jason as the gatekeepers? since they're the editors actually listed on the spec
17:29:47 [sandro]
sandro: third option, maybe webreq can do it -- I think that's policy
17:30:06 [sandro]
action: sandro find out if webreq can handle namespace document, or if there's a better solution
17:30:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-91 - Find out if webreq can handle namespace document, or if there's a better solution [on Sandro Hawke - due 2017-09-05].
17:31:06 [ajordan]
q+
17:31:25 [tantek]
ack ajordan
17:31:32 [sandro]
sandro: in any of the three cases, I see the chairs as formally recognizing consensus and informing github or staff
17:31:55 [sandro]
ajordan: so it almost doesnt matter which mechanism we use
17:31:57 [sandro]
sandro: right
17:32:30 [sandro]
topic: AS2 context for sensitive tag
17:32:31 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
17:32:55 [sandro]
cwebber2: Mastodon is rolling out AS2 with sensitive tag
17:33:32 [sandro]
.. they could use their own term, but it's going to rolled out, so should it be in AS2?
17:33:38 [ajordan]
q+
17:33:40 [sandro]
.. we'll be talking about this in CG tomorrow
17:33:58 [sandro]
.. so I guess this is a Head Up
17:34:03 [sandro]
.. more of a CG discussion
17:34:09 [ajordan]
q-
17:34:20 [sandro]
.. also about Hashtag object
17:34:25 [tantek]
q?
17:35:34 [sandro]
tantek: If you're looking for input, the CG is responsible for this kind of decision, so you the CG needs to come up with how to evaluate extensions, maybe, instead of making lots of one-off decisions
17:36:11 [sandro]
.. if you decide on some criteria, I dont think the CG is bound by WG requirements, but COULD consider things like 2-implementations
17:36:23 [sandro]
.. I realize that's kind of chicken-and-egg
17:36:34 [sandro]
.. I leave that as something for CG to resolve
17:36:46 [sandro]
.. that's my input
17:36:57 [ajordan]
I would suggest discussing this directly on the CG call, even if the chairs make the final decision about criteria
17:37:40 [sandro]
cwebber2: Maybe I should reach out to jasnell direction re hashtag
17:37:48 [sandro]
s/direction/directly/
17:39:20 [sandro]
tantek: w3c process to seek out dissenting opinion and try to incorporate it
17:39:51 [cwebber2]
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/254
17:39:52 [Loqi]
[cwebber] #254 Should "endpoints" be dropped?
17:39:55 [sandro]
topic: ActivityPub clarifying scope of endpoints (#254)
17:40:27 [sandro]
cwebber2: question was does anyone like this design
17:40:49 [sandro]
cwebber2: lots of endpoints
17:41:14 [sandro]
.. having raised that, some people like tsyesika explained there's a good reason to keep it
17:41:29 [sandro]
.. it's very messy to have all these properties not really about actor be on the actor
17:41:57 [sandro]
.. there are two ways to resolve messyness
17:42:08 [sandro]
.. (1) better documentation
17:42:36 [sandro]
.. (2) (from puck) move sharedInbox out of there, make it client-to-server only
17:43:09 [sandro]
.. so with (1) endpoints are shared across on whole domain, or with (2) it's just in c2s
17:43:21 [sandro]
.. so now I'm with (1), just clarify things
17:44:10 [sandro]
cwebber2: This would affect implementations, and be a new-CR change, fwiw
17:44:28 [cwebber2]
PROPOSAL: rephrase description of endpoints to clarify that its scope is for endpoints that tend to be shared on a domain/server
17:44:53 [sandro]
cwebber2: this would not be a normative change
17:44:57 [cwebber2]
+1
17:45:05 [ajordan]
+0
17:45:16 [sandro]
+0 sounds reasonable, but don't really know issues
17:45:33 [ajordan]
^^^ same
17:45:48 [tsyesika]
+1
17:45:52 [sandro]
tantek: me too, mild support, anyone else?
17:46:06 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: rephrase description of endpoints to clarify that its scope is for endpoints that tend to be shared on a domain/server
17:46:31 [saranix]
I thought it was just other collections that the actor had?
17:47:12 [cwebber2]
topic: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/242
17:47:12 [Loqi]
[cwebber] #242 sharedInbox / siteInbox type endpoint (publicInbox, but not just for public posts)
17:47:33 [cwebber2]
topic: Accept/Reject Follow (#244)
17:47:35 [tantek]
Hi saranix, we are in the middle of a Social Web WG telcon - can you wait til after or CG call tomorrow?
17:47:38 [sandro]
topic: ActivityPub -- Accept/Reject Follow (#244)
17:48:14 [sandro]
cwebber2: We now have implementation support, which we'd made this contingent on
17:48:23 [sandro]
.. so I'm just informing the group
17:48:32 [sandro]
.. Mastodon is rolling this out in next release
17:48:39 [cwebber2]
topic: sharedInbox (#242)
17:48:46 [sandro]
topic: ActivityPub sharedInbox #242
17:49:32 [sandro]
cwebber2: oh, I got these backwards. sharedInbox was the one we made contingent on implementations!
17:49:42 [cwebber2]
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/242
17:49:42 [Loqi]
[cwebber] #242 sharedInbox / siteInbox type endpoint (publicInbox, but not just for public posts)
17:49:49 [sandro]
.. messages to followers on big instances; being rolled out.
17:49:52 [cwebber2]
topic: Accept/Reject Follow (#244)
17:50:01 [sandro]
Back to Accept/Reject follow
17:50:27 [sandro]
cwebber2: Mastodon is rolling this out, too
17:50:37 [sandro]
.. but waiting for our new CR
17:50:46 [cwebber2]
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/commit/08cbb048bf35df52567431d39e993f3d4a7c60ac
17:51:16 [cwebber2]
https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#follow-activity-inbox
17:52:45 [cwebber2]
> Servers MAY choose to not explicitly send a Reject in response to a Follow if there is a good privacy reason not to do so, though implementors ought to be aware that the server sending the request may be left in an intermediate state.
17:53:12 [sandro]
tantek: any thoughts on this change....?
17:53:31 [sandro]
cwebber2: If there's a good privacy reason you don't want to let people know, ... we left that option
17:54:17 [sandro]
tantek: good case for "for example"
17:54:35 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
17:54:55 [eprodrom]
present+
17:55:07 [sandro]
cwebber2: the may is an escape hatch, but then the SHOULD would generate an accept...
17:55:41 [sandro]
tantek: no no, keep the strong wording, just in the may-choose-to-not ....
17:55:53 [sandro]
<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/commit/08cbb048bf35df52567431d39e993f3d4a7c60ac
17:55:53 [sandro]
<cwebber2> https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#follow-activity-inbox
17:56:06 [eprodrom]
sandro, thanks
17:56:19 [eprodrom]
I've been on the call for a few minute
17:56:21 [eprodrom]
s
17:57:31 [cwebber2]
so maybe: Servers MAY choose to not explicitly send a Reject in response to a Follow, though implementors ought to be aware that the server sending the request may be left in an intermediate state. For example, a server might not send a Reject to protect a user's privacy.
17:59:01 [eprodrom]
No
17:59:22 [ajordan]
OK
17:59:31 [rhiaro]
+1 what tantek is saying and chris's text
18:00:13 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: Accept Accept/Reject on Follow language from Editor's Draft with adjustments to example discussed on this call to resolve #244.
18:00:16 [cwebber2]
+1
18:00:22 [tantek]
+1
18:00:30 [rhiaro]
+1
18:00:40 [sandro]
+1
18:00:52 [eprodrom]
+1
18:00:55 [tsyesika]
+1
18:00:59 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: Accept Accept/Reject on Follow language from Editor's Draft with adjustments to example discussed on this call to resolve #244.
18:01:02 [ajordan]
+1
18:02:06 [eprodrom]
Great
18:02:20 [sandro]
cwebber2: Evan, okay if I ping jasnell directly?
18:02:40 [sandro]
topic: Issue normative CR on AP ?
18:03:05 [sandro]
cwebber2: Mastodon is holding up release, waiting on this.
18:03:20 [sandro]
cwebber2: I'll do changelog now, while meeting talks about other things.
18:03:28 [sandro]
topic: WebSub
18:03:32 [tantek]
Zakim, who is here?
18:03:32 [Zakim]
Present: sandro, tantek, rhiaro, ajordan, cwebber, tsyesika, eprodrom
18:03:34 [Zakim]
On IRC I see eprodrom, timbl, ajordan, Zakim, RRSAgent, tantek, cdchapman, KjetilK__, xmpp-social, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, dwhly, jankusanagi_, Loqi, bigbluehat, jet, rhiaro,
18:03:34 [Zakim]
... Gargron, dlongley, cwebber2, oshepherd, bwn, nightpool, trackbot, MMN-o, csarven, jaywink, sknebel, tsyesika, astronouth7303, puckipedia, raucao, tcit, mattl, DenSchub,
18:03:34 [Zakim]
... saranix, aaronpk, bitbear, albino, sandro
18:03:42 [sandro]
sandro: regrets from Aaron and Julien
18:03:57 [sandro]
tantek: They resolved 119 amongst themselves
18:03:59 [tantek]
https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/119
18:04:00 [Loqi]
[marten-de-vries] #119 'the hub terminates the subscription'
18:04:38 [sandro]
sandro: it looks to me like a normative chance, so I'm looking for some argument that I'm wrong about that
18:04:49 [sandro]
s/chance/change/
18:05:34 [sandro]
tantek: can't resolve without more info -- hopefully next week
18:05:45 [sandro]
topic: Post Type Discovery
18:05:49 [sandro]
tantek: nothing new
18:05:54 [rhiaro]
Sorry, nothing new
18:06:07 [sandro]
nothing new on JF2 or SWP
18:06:24 [ajordan]
q+
18:06:32 [sandro]
tantek: AOB? (other than AP CR)
18:06:37 [rhiaro]
q+
18:06:57 [sandro]
ajordan: I've been adding AS2 to pump.io and it's coming along nicelyt
18:06:58 [tantek]
ack ajordan
18:06:59 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
18:07:19 [sandro]
rhiaro: Does it make sense to schedule anything for TPAC
18:07:35 [cwebber2]
o/
18:07:39 [tantek]
who is going to be at TPAC
18:07:40 [cwebber2]
o/ <- will be at tpac
18:07:44 [tantek]
o/
18:07:45 [ajordan]
I'm not sure
18:07:49 [sandro]
not me
18:07:52 [ajordan]
if I was I would only be there for us
18:07:53 [tsyesika]
not me either
18:08:24 [sandro]
+1 schedule a CG meetup
18:08:41 [sandro]
if it's not too late etc
18:09:03 [cwebber2]
whew, changelog: https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-22-august-to-present
18:09:46 [sandro]
:-)
18:09:51 [cwebber2]
staying in school is how you stay cool
18:10:00 [eprodrom]
Fine with me
18:10:19 [sandro]
tantek: Evan, we made a plan to have 90 minute meetings tomorrow and every other week after that, unless there's need for me
18:10:23 [ajordan]
cwebber2: exactly
18:10:25 [eprodrom]
20th
18:10:41 [rhiaro]
s/6th/5th
18:11:08 [sandro]
tantek: I'll chair Sep 5 and Evan will chair Sep 19
18:11:25 [tantek]
s/20th/19th
18:12:18 [cwebber2]
https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-22-august-to-present
18:13:27 [tantek]
I see two here https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/tree/gh-pages/implementation-reports so this is just a link change?
18:14:51 [tantek]
cwebber2, https://activitypub.rocks/implementation-report/ should have items for the impl reports in https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/tree/gh-pages/implementation-reports
18:15:20 [sandro]
sandro: Can we get the implementation report before publication?
18:15:33 [sandro]
sandro: Can we clarify Owen's role, maybe as "Original Author"
18:16:08 [sandro]
tantek: So this was based on ActivityPump which was written by Owen. Maybe say that?
18:16:26 [sandro]
tantek: Looking for cases where one spec came from another
18:16:38 [tantek]
https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/
18:16:39 [Loqi]
[Aaron Parecki] Webmention
18:17:24 [sandro]
tantek: Do like the Author's Note in wb, explaining this is based on apump from owen, etc
18:18:25 [ajordan]
someone run a git blame
18:19:04 [sandro]
+1
18:19:54 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: Issue new ActivityPub CR with changes as noted in changelog at https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-22-august-to-present
18:20:00 [rhiaro]
+1
18:20:03 [cwebber2]
+1
18:20:05 [sandro]
+1
18:20:06 [ajordan]
+1
18:20:34 [tsyesika]
+1
18:22:06 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: Issue new ActivityPub CR with changes as noted in changelog at https://w3c.github.io/activitypub/#changes-22-august-to-present
18:22:12 [ajordan]
whoohooo!
18:22:13 [sandro]
sandro: so publicInbox will remain as deprecated, with an explanation, so people know what it means if they see that in some data or code somewhere.
18:22:15 [eprodrom]
+1
18:22:30 [sandro]
tantek: AOB?
18:22:41 [sandro]
ADJOURNED until next week
18:22:44 [eprodrom]
Thanks Tantek!
18:22:45 [sandro]
tantek: Thanks everyone
18:22:50 [eprodrom]
tantek++
18:22:51 [Loqi]
tantek has 69 karma in this channel (381 overall)
18:23:05 [cwebber2]
sandro++
18:23:05 [Loqi]
sandro has 49 karma in this channel (56 overall)
18:23:06 [cwebber2]
tantek++
18:23:07 [Loqi]
tantek has 70 karma in this channel (382 overall)
18:23:08 [tantek]
sandro++ for scribing!
18:23:08 [Loqi]
slow down!
18:23:10 [tantek]
trackbot, end meeting
18:23:10 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:23:10 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been sandro, tantek, rhiaro, ajordan, cwebber, tsyesika, eprodrom
18:23:18 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:23:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/29-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:23:19 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:23:19 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/08/29-social-actions.rdf :
18:23:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: sandro find out if webreq can handle namespace document, or if there's a better solution [1]
18:23:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/08/29-social-irc#T17-30-06