17:02:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
17:02:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/10-social-irc
17:02:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:02:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
17:02:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:02:08 <trackbot> Date: 10 October 2017
17:02:17 <rhiaro> present+
17:02:25 <aaronpk> present+
17:02:36 <cwebber> scribenick: cwebber
17:02:37 <ajordan> present+
17:02:40 <eprodrom> chairnick: eprodrom
17:02:48 <sandro> present+
17:02:58 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-09-19-minutes <-- review now
17:03:39 <eprodrom> Zakim, who's here?
17:03:39 <Zakim> Present: rhiaro, aaronpk, ajordan, sandro
17:03:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, eprodrom, timbl, ajordan, JanKusanagi, bwn, xmpp-social, adam, csarven, rhiaro, er1ncandescent, bigbluehat, Gargron, sknebel_, dlehn, dlongley, Loqi,
17:03:41 <Zakim> ... bitbear, wilkie, surinna, jaywink, cwebber, aaronpk, howl, DenSchub, raucao, jet, dwhly, saranix, tsyesika, astronouth7303, mattl, ben_thatmustbeme, melody, sandro, nightpool,
17:03:41 <Zakim> ... trackbot, puckipedia
17:03:42 <eprodrom> present+
17:03:42 <cwebber> +1
17:03:49 <cwebber> present+
17:05:04 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-09-19-minutes as minutes for 19 Sep 2017 meeting
17:05:12 <cwebber> +1
17:05:17 <rhiaro> +1
17:05:25 <sandro> +1
17:05:36 <eprodrom> +1
17:05:44 <ajordan> +1
17:06:02 <aaronpk> +1
17:06:18 <ajordan> have people ever -1'd minutes?
17:06:21 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-09-19-minutes as minutes for 19 Sep 2017 meeting
17:06:21 <ajordan> ahh
17:06:47 <cwebber> eprodrom: next question is November telcon meeting
17:07:08 <cwebber> ... we have a meeting on the 10th and 24th; Tantek has asked about future meetings which would be 11-1 I believe?
17:07:17 <cwebber> sandro: No, October 31st
17:07:32 <cwebber> eprodrom: and then 11-14 I guess?
17:07:49 <cwebber> sandro: sorry it would be 10-24 and 11-7
17:08:18 <cwebber> eprodrom: how about we do the 14th and the 28th of November
17:09:12 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: Telecons on 14 Nov 2017 and 28 Nov 2017 unless others are necessary
17:09:13 <ajordan> +1
17:09:14 <cwebber> +1
17:09:15 <sandro> +1
17:09:17 <eprodrom> +1
17:09:18 <rhiaro> +1
17:09:25 <aaronpk> +1 works for me
17:09:39 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: Telecons on 14 Nov 2017 and 28 Nov 2017 unless others are necessary
17:10:02 <cwebber> eprodrom: we'll still have one more meeting before TPAC but while we're still doing admin stuff I wonder if people who are...
17:10:11 <eprodrom> TOPIC: plans for TPAC
17:10:13 <cwebber> eprodrom: oh I think we discussed that people who are at TPAC will do a BOF?
17:10:41 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
17:10:47 <rhiaro> cwebber: you emailed about space for cg right?
17:11:42 <cwebber> cwebber: yes BOFs, and yes I emailed about CG but haven't heard definitively
17:11:48 <cwebber> sandro: CGs are happening, follow up
17:11:50 <cwebber> cwebber: ok
17:11:51 <tantek> present+
17:11:52 <Loqi> tantek: ajordan left you a message 1 week, 5 days ago: ugh, IWC NYC looks so fun! probably too late to get train tickets, etc., however I *did* announce it to the folks in the programming institute I was in over my gap year (Recurse Center, https://www.recurse.com/) so hopefully you get some alumni and in-batch folks who show up!
17:12:06 <tantek> I will be at TPAC
17:12:09 <cwebber> eprodrom: I assume among the three of you one of you will work out a BoF
17:12:14 <cwebber> cwebber2: yes
17:12:19 <cwebber> cwebber: yes
17:12:38 <cwebber> tantek: I can probably do one, the BOF rules may change this year... I'll explain more later
17:13:21 <cwebber> eprodrom: I will ask cwebber, are cg members able to join
17:14:02 <cwebber> tantek: CG would be cutting edge discussions, whereas BoF would be a bit more like what we had in Portugal: more demos of more specs taken to REC, etc... trying to gather interest for the CG
17:14:19 <cwebber> eprodrom: excellent, so there seem to be reasons to plan both
17:14:29 <cwebber> tantek: yes, and I'd like someone else to do the BoF
17:14:37 <cdchapman> cdchapman has joined #social
17:14:51 <cwebber> cwebber: I can probably organzie the BoF
17:14:53 <eprodrom> TOPIC: Mozfest
17:15:00 <cwebber> eprodrom: I want to talk about another event at the end of the month
17:15:17 <rhiaro> ohhhh I'm back and forth on going to Mozfest
17:15:20 <cwebber> eprodrom: I'm facilitating a discussion about the AP network and where things are.  dunno if anyone else is going to be there but wanted to get that out there
17:15:20 <rhiaro> maybe I wll then
17:16:18 <cwebber> eprodrom: tantek fyi we're doing nov 14th and 28th, is that ok?
17:16:22 <cwebber> tantek: no objections
17:16:31 <eprodrom> TOPIC: ActivityPub
17:16:31 <cwebber> eprodrom: if there's any other admin issues, otherwise we'll move on to AP
17:17:20 <ajordan> scribenick: ajordan
17:17:21 <eprodrom> Can we get a temp scribe?
17:17:41 <ajordan> eprodrom: so cwebber where are we with uhhhh ActivityPub?
17:17:50 <ajordan> cwebber: main thing is the test suite and gathering implementation reports
17:18:00 <ajordan> ... last week we decided I'd do the more prompty thing
17:18:11 <ajordan> ... but also I was at Rebooting Web of Trust and had some client works
17:18:25 <ajordan> ... but I have some time in the next couple weeks and the prompty thing should be pretty straightforward
17:18:44 <ajordan> ... if I have time to refactor it and pretend to be a server great, but I think the priority is getting something that works
17:18:48 <ajordan> ... questions? or I'll move on
17:19:05 <ajordan> sandro: I don't want to do the math about exact deadlines again but can we say it'll definitely be done by the meeting in two weeks?
17:19:20 <ajordan> ... and if at say the halfway point if you think you won't get there you ask for help?
17:19:28 <ajordan> cwebber: yeah I'm hoping to get it done by the end of the week
17:19:39 <ajordan> ... will check in with the group on IRC next Tuesday when we don't meet
17:19:56 <ajordan> sandro: not sure everyone's on IRC but... I probably will be so it'll be okay
17:19:58 <ajordan> cwebber: yeah feel free to ping me
17:19:59 <cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/239
17:20:00 <Loqi> [puckipedia] #239 mediaUpload: only post to outbox if it's a Create activity?
17:20:16 <ajordan> cwebber: spec's pretty good but there are two issues we need to resolve
17:20:32 <ajordan> ... I hate to say it but I think we should drop it, it's at risk
17:20:36 <ajordan> ... just given our timeframe
17:20:50 <ajordan> ... obviously this needs to happen for my sake for MediaGoblin so it won't be dropped on the floor entirely
17:20:54 <ajordan> ... this is just AP proper
17:21:15 <tantek> s/drop it/drop mediaUpload endpoint
17:21:17 <ajordan> cwebber: does anyone have opinions? should I make this a proposal?
17:21:48 <ajordan> eprodrom: if we took out the uploads endpoint would we be able to upload things using literal data ??? or something?
17:22:02 <timbl> timbl has joined #social
17:22:03 <ajordan> cwebber: what you could still do (and I have done this) is you could point... tantek are you typing?
17:22:20 <tantek> sorry. I was going to ask about existing implementations of mediaUpload
17:22:29 <ajordan> ... what you can do and I've done this on my own server when you slot in the URL for C2S video, you can put *any* URL in there
17:22:36 <ajordan> ... you can use an external host as a separate step
17:22:57 <ajordan> tantek: my biggest question is, where are we with impls of it? client and server?
17:23:02 <ajordan> ... just in your estimation, nevermind tested
17:23:19 <ajordan> cwebber: I've got an impl, puckipedia has an impl, but we both discussed wanting to change it
17:23:26 <ajordan> tantek: in a non backwards-compatible way?
17:23:29 <ajordan> cwebber: yes
17:23:40 <ajordan> tantek: this is exactly what CR is for, try to implement it, see if there are problems
17:23:53 <ajordan> ... based on your experience it seems like the spec needs to change and we're running out of time
17:24:00 <ajordan> cwebber: that's exactly why we marked this at risk too
17:24:13 <ajordan> ... it's the least tested part of the spec and if it's not in there the protocol still works just fine
17:24:20 <ajordan> tantek: that's a wise way to make sure the spec is in shape
17:24:34 <ajordan> cwebber: obviously I'm not proposing this since it's the most exciting for me
17:24:41 <ajordan> ... but I feel confident we can do it in an extension
17:24:50 <ajordan> tantek: and certainly better than prematurely specifying something that's wrong
17:24:51 <ajordan> cwebber: yep
17:24:58 <ajordan> ... should I type up a proposal?
17:25:09 <ajordan> tantek: I'll leave the floor open if anyone else wants to provide opinions
17:25:16 <ajordan> *silence*
17:25:28 <ajordan> ... if no one else has opinions go ahead
17:25:36 <ajordan> eprodrom: yeah why don't you write it up cwebber
17:25:45 <cwebber> PROPOSED: Resolve https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/239 by removing mediaUpload and specified behavior from ActivityPub spec proper, move to extension via SocialCG process
17:25:46 <Loqi> [puckipedia] #239 mediaUpload: only post to outbox if it's a Create activity?
17:25:54 <cwebber> +1
17:26:00 <ajordan> <ajordan> +1
17:26:05 <eprodrom> +0
17:26:13 <aaronpk> +0
17:26:22 <eprodrom> actually -0
17:26:54 <sandro> +0
17:27:02 <ajordan> cwebber: eprodrom I'm guessing your -0 is "it sucks to not have this in the spec"?
17:27:04 <ajordan> eprodrom: yeah
17:27:10 <ajordan> cwebber: I feel the same way even though I +1'd
17:27:12 <aaronpk> same
17:27:16 <tantek> +1 it's the right thing to do to make the spec more solid, and avoid implementations coding the wrong thing
17:27:25 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: Resolve https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/239 by removing mediaUpload and specified behavior from ActivityPub spec proper, move to extension via SocialCG process
17:27:26 <Loqi> [puckipedia] #239 mediaUpload: only post to outbox if it's a Create activity?
17:27:27 <ajordan> eprodrom: yeah I understand the reasons it just seems like an important thing we didn't manage to get in
17:27:34 <ajordan> eprodrom: okay, looks like we're there
17:27:41 <ajordan> cwebber: I'm gonna copy it to the issue and deal with the rest of it later
17:27:53 <ajordan> ... okay so the next one is...
17:28:06 <ajordan> eprodrom: cwebber could I ask that you start a new document with that content ASAP?
17:28:16 <ajordan> cwebber: yeah I'll even put it as a topic for the SocialCG which meets tomorrow
17:28:31 <ajordan> ... lemme put that on the issue too so I don't forget it
17:28:35 <ajordan> ... okay
17:28:49 <ajordan> ... alright great, ummm, as great as you can get
17:29:08 <cwebber> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/260
17:29:09 <Loqi> [yvolk] #260 Relation between Actors and Users of servers is undefined
17:29:15 <ajordan> cwebber: I'd like to talk about issue 260
17:30:03 <ajordan> ... it's about actors and users and their relationship
17:30:17 <ajordan> ... the author of it is the author of an important impl, AndStatus, so we do want this feedback
17:30:27 <ajordan> ... there's a part of this I think is correct and we should address
17:30:33 <ajordan> ... there's also a part of this that is conflating things
17:30:58 <ajordan> ... the correct thing is that in the non-normative intro to the spec we say "here's a user" and that's incorrect because there's not necessarily a 1-1 mapping between actor/user
17:31:09 <ajordan> ... actor could be a service, a user could have more than one actor
17:31:17 <ajordan> ... there might not be a user for a given actor
17:31:40 <ajordan> ... but the spec is also talking about there being... they raised oh well we don't have a way for a person to move between multiple servers
17:31:47 <cwebber> https://github.com/swicg/general/issues/1
17:31:47 <Loqi> [sandhawke] #1 Follower Migration
17:31:50 <ajordan> ... we've talked about this and we have an issue for follower migration in the SocialCG
17:32:07 <rhiaro> Thaaaat sounds like an implementation detail
17:32:08 <ajordan> ... I think the SocialCG is the right place to discuss that, I don't think we should add that to AP
17:32:15 <rhiaro> q+
17:32:23 <ajordan> ... the other thing is they suggest we should model in the relationship between users/actors
17:32:33 <ajordan> ... I'm pretty -1 on that
17:32:55 <ajordan> ... we don't need it in the spec and there's a reason there's a difference
17:33:01 <ajordan> ... options:
17:33:03 <ajordan> ... a) ???
17:33:17 <ajordan> ... b) take it to the CG
17:33:36 <ajordan> ... c) add(?) something to the spec but we don't have a lot of time and it'll be very complex
17:33:46 <eprodrom> q+
17:33:48 <ajordan> eprodrom: we have a queue
17:33:50 <eprodrom> ack rhiaro
17:33:58 <cwebber> cwebber: a) clarify that users and actors are not one to one relationship
17:34:51 <ajordan> rhiaro: the issue of follower migration is definitely an impl detail
17:34:58 <ajordan> ... no amount of data modeling will make it easier or harder
17:35:07 <ajordan> ... in summary I agree with everyting cwebber said basically
17:35:19 <ajordan> ... we had this whole discussion in ActivityStreams on how to model this
17:35:33 <timbl> timbl has joined #social
17:35:35 <cwebber> cwebber: c) don't add complex User and Actor modeling which will muddy up the spec
17:35:42 <ajordan> ... I don't think the spec in any way constrains implementations in the way this guy is suggesting
17:35:50 <eprodrom> ack eprodrom
17:35:53 <ajordan> ... but maybe a sentence noting that there is *no* 1-1 mapping
17:36:02 <ajordan> eprodrom: I see one possibility talking about data portability
17:36:10 <eprodrom> data portability story = register your own domain
17:36:12 <ajordan> ... probably the easiest one is register your own domain
17:36:19 <tantek> eprodrom++ :)
17:36:19 <Loqi> eprodrom has 48 karma in this channel (49 overall)
17:36:24 <ajordan> ... that is clearly the easiest way to get data portability
17:36:33 <ajordan> ... it also happens to be the wayt o get data portability in many other systems
17:36:37 <ajordan> ... may be worth calling that out
17:36:53 <ajordan> ... telling implementors to allow users to use their own domain
17:37:00 <eprodrom> 1 user -> 1 person
17:37:06 <ajordan> ... the other thing is yes, it's not necessarily the case where one user would be one person but that's often the case
17:37:07 <eprodrom> 1 user -> 1 organisation
17:37:17 <eprodrom> multiple user -> 1 organisation
17:37:25 <eprodrom> 1 user -> multiple personae
17:37:39 <ajordan> ... I think those are the most common formats
17:37:51 <aaronpk> q+
17:38:10 <ajordan> ... it gets pretty crazy in there but it may be worthwile saying "these are some comon ones, the spec doesn't define what other possibilities there are"
17:38:11 <eprodrom> ack aaronpk
17:38:28 <ajordan> aaronpk: just wanted to say that there's so many reasons tying to real people is a terrible idea
17:38:46 <ajordan> ... I'm all for doing whatever it takes to keep an AP user as an AP user without any idea of what that means in a real-world space
17:38:56 <ajordan> ... I like eprodrom'd idea to just get a domain and use it as an id
17:39:03 <cwebber> q?
17:39:07 <ajordan> ... that simplifies the identity aspect without muddying it with real people's identities
17:39:07 <eprodrom> q?
17:39:18 <ajordan> cwebber: we have an empty queue, should I follow it up with a proposal?
17:39:22 <ajordan> eprodrom: SURE
17:39:26 <ajordan> cwebber: mkay, gonna type one up
17:40:13 <cwebber> PROPOSED: Resolve https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/260 by clarifying that there is no specific mapping of one user to one actor (and there can be many configurations) in the spec; leave follower migration to SocialCG, and do not add extra modeling of mapping real-world Users to Actors
17:40:13 <Loqi> [yvolk] #260 Relation between Actors and Users of servers is undefined
17:40:25 <eprodrom> +1
17:40:27 <cwebber> +1
17:40:33 <ajordan> +1
17:40:34 <aaronpk> +1
17:40:39 <sandro> +1
17:40:52 <ajordan> <ajordan> and I guess whether to add a list of "common" mappings falls under editor's discretion
17:41:02 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: Resolve https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/260 by clarifying that there is no specific mapping of one user to one actor (and there can be many configurations) in the spec; leave follower migration to SocialCG, and do not add extra modeling of mapping real-world Users to Actors
17:41:03 <Loqi> [yvolk] #260 Relation between Actors and Users of servers is undefined
17:41:06 <tantek> +1
17:41:11 <ajordan> eprodrom: alright let's mark this as resolved
17:41:24 <ajordan> ... that was your second issue cwebber, is there anything else on AP today?
17:41:28 <ajordan> cwebber: nope we got through all of it
17:41:30 <ajordan> eprodrom: great
17:41:42 <ajordan> ... so we're at 40 minutes but we've got a 90 minute schedule today
17:41:53 <ajordan> ... let's move on and talk about WebSub
17:41:55 <cwebber> scribenick: cwebber
17:42:01 <cwebber> TOPIC: WebSub
17:42:02 <eprodrom> TOPIC: WebSub
17:42:05 <eprodrom> ajordan++
17:42:05 <Loqi> ajordan has 20 karma in this channel (21 overall)
17:42:13 <cwebber> eprodrom: aaronpk where are we at with WebSub
17:42:26 <cwebber> aaronpk: PR was published Tuesday, which is great news... "what's next" is my question
17:42:39 <cwebber> sandro: I can take a look at the survey but I think the main thing is to remind people to vote
17:43:03 <sandro> AC Reps should vote at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/websub-cr/
17:43:23 <rhiaro> we have older votes from CR right?
17:44:34 <cwebber> tantek: if someone could reach out to Google implementors that would be good
17:45:30 <cwebber> sandro: also Mozilla could vote... anyone else
17:45:35 <tantek> nothing new on PTD, striking from agenda
17:45:42 <cwebber> sandro: no issues, right aaronpk ?
17:45:48 <cwebber> aaronpk: nothing new
17:46:06 <cwebber> eprodrom: are we looking for implementations or looking for them?
17:46:11 <cwebber> aaronpk: we hit the bar but more is always better
17:46:41 <eprodrom> ben_thatmustbeme: ?
17:46:50 <cwebber> eprodrom: I think tantek removed PTD from the discussion, so next is JF2 if ben is here?
17:46:50 <ajordan> q+
17:46:51 <eprodrom> Zakim, who's here?
17:46:53 <Zakim> Present: rhiaro, aaronpk, ajordan, sandro, eprodrom, cwebber, tantek
17:46:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see timbl, cdchapman, tantek, Zakim, RRSAgent, eprodrom, ajordan, JanKusanagi, bwn, xmpp-social, adam, csarven, rhiaro, er1ncandescent, bigbluehat, Gargron, sknebel_,
17:46:53 <Zakim> ... dlehn, dlongley, Loqi, bitbear, wilkie, surinna, jaywink, cwebber, aaronpk, howl, DenSchub, raucao, jet, dwhly, saranix, tsyesika, astronouth7303, mattl, ben_thatmustbeme,
17:46:55 <Zakim> ... melody, sandro, nightpool, trackbot, puckipedia
17:47:06 <ajordan> eprodrom: I'm queued
17:47:08 <cwebber> eprodrom: looks like ben_thatmustbeme is not here, so next item is Social Web Protocols
17:47:09 <rhiaro> Nooothing new
17:47:14 <tantek> SWP needs an update with WebSub PR :)
17:47:15 <eprodrom> ack ajordan
17:47:21 <eprodrom> q?
17:47:22 <rhiaro> SWP needs many things.
17:48:04 <cwebber> ajordan: I can say I submitted a lot of issues to JF2 which has been going through implementing some of my patches
17:48:25 <cwebber> TOPIC: JF2
17:48:33 <cwebber> tantek: working draft out there is pretty old, if there are improvements we should turn the crank to publish another update
17:48:49 <cwebber> ajordan: you have to ask ben_thatmustbeme but afaict it's consistent enough to publish a draft, but don't want to speak for ben
17:49:07 <cwebber> tantek: this may be an instance where if folks want to take a look...
17:49:12 <ajordan> https://dissolve.github.io/jf2/
17:49:29 <eprodrom> q?
17:49:54 <cwebber> ajordan: looking at the commit history, I don't think there's anything really substantial there; it's mostly just editorial stuff.  the one thing is there's a bunch of normative references that were informative before.  I guess that's a fix but it was probably obvious
17:50:03 <Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-10-10]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=104644&oldid=104637
17:50:10 <cwebber> tantek: that's worth it, last official publication was from ~ 2 months ago so that's worth updating
17:50:27 <cwebber> tantek: ok AJ I leave it to you to review this document and see if it's good as a WD update
17:50:34 <cwebber> tantek: I'd like to include your updates/patches/etc
17:50:48 <cwebber> tantek: let's let folks take a look at it then we could have a proposal at the next telecon
17:50:55 <cwebber> ajordan: I could also ping Ben
17:51:35 <eprodrom> TOPIC: SWP
17:51:38 <rhiaro> Nothing for SWP
17:51:56 <ajordan> !tell ben_thatmustbeme hey, we discussed publishing a new JF2 WD on the telecon with the patches I submitted. AFAICT it's in a publishable state but didn't want to speak for you? what do you think?
17:51:56 <Loqi> Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
17:51:57 <rhiaro> Needs updating in general..
17:51:58 <tantek> I thought we resolved to update SWP whenever we had a document status change?
17:52:20 <rhiaro> I don't remember from last meeting, and I scribed
17:52:22 <ajordan> was it bridging?
17:52:41 <ajordan> oops I should write up some text for that
17:52:48 <cwebber> eprodrom: you had some briding ideas I believe AJ?
17:52:49 <cwebber> ajordan: yes
17:52:52 <rhiaro> there's already bridging stuff in SWP
17:52:54 <cwebber> ajordan: this was from a while ago
17:53:29 <cwebber> tantek: not only that but people have put those ideas into practice in the last few weeks.  Ryan aka (snark?) of bridgy fame has put forward bridging between various indieweb protocols and activitypub
17:53:31 <ajordan> tantek: link?
17:53:42 <cwebber> tantek: he's using fed.bridgy to converse on Mastodon
17:53:42 <ajordan> s/snark?/snarfed/
17:53:44 <tantek> fed.brid.gy
17:53:52 <cwebber> ajordan: that's phenomenal
17:54:01 <cwebber> tantek: happy to see evidence of it working, pretty cool
17:54:25 <cwebber> tantek: that may be worth adding the bridging section to SWP, but it is tying our work together
17:55:10 <cwebber> ajordan: we could also reach out to mastodon to futher improve interop... I have to check but I think all they need to do is add a config option to add a link to a webmention (?) and that should in theory interop with all indieweb sites
17:55:12 <cwebber> tantek: wow ok
17:55:46 <rhiaro> Sure
17:55:48 <rhiaro> issues, PRs
17:55:53 <rhiaro> but please read the existing bridging stuff first :)
17:55:56 <cwebber> tantek: should we file issues / PRs?
17:56:08 <cwebber> ajordan: yes I filed an issue about it but then I never followed up
17:56:21 <cwebber> tantek: that's definitely worth a big update
17:56:47 <cwebber> eprodrom: anything else on SWP?
17:57:11 <cwebber> q+
17:57:16 <eprodrom> ack cwebber
17:58:08 <sandro> +1 the meetings are fun when folks show up
17:58:15 <cwebber> cwebber: SocialCG meeting tomorrow, please show up!
17:58:22 <cwebber> eprodrom: with that I think we can close it up
17:58:29 <tantek> cwebber++ for scribing!
17:58:29 <Loqi> cwebber has 26 karma
17:58:33 <eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting
17:58:33 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:58:33 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been rhiaro, aaronpk, ajordan, sandro, eprodrom, cwebber, tantek
17:58:35 <ajordan> cwebber++
17:58:35 <Loqi> cwebber has 27 karma
17:58:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:58:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/10-social-minutes.html trackbot
17:58:42 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:58:42 <RRSAgent> I see no action items