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