IRC log of social on 2015-04-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:58:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
16:58:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/21-social-irc
16:58:45 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:58:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
16:58:47 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:58:47 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
16:58:48 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:58:48 [trackbot]
Date: 21 April 2015
16:58:52 [elf-pavlik]
just to clarify, James already prepared PR to drop *as:rel* https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/100
16:59:54 [elf-pavlik]
eprodrom, what do you mean by open-ended?
17:00:04 [harry]
chairs, if you guys don't mind staying on after the call quickly, we have some new IE applications
17:00:20 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has now started
17:00:21 [harry]
I'll forward them out now, just recovering from most vicious flu ever
17:00:26 [harry]
Zakim, code?
17:00:26 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry
17:00:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.514.554.aaaa
17:00:46 [eprodrom]
trackbot, start meeting
17:00:48 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:00:50 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:00:50 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start now
17:00:51 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:00:51 [trackbot]
Date: 21 April 2015
17:00:59 [eprodrom]
Zakim, aaaa is me
17:00:59 [Zakim]
sorry, eprodrom, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
17:01:22 [eprodrom]
Zakim, aaaa is eprodrom
17:01:22 [Zakim]
sorry, eprodrom, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
17:01:37 [aaronpk]
Zakim?
17:01:48 [aaronpk]
Zakim, who is on the call?
17:01:48 [Zakim]
I notice T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has restarted
17:01:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.514.554.aaaa, Sandro, Marilyn, aaronpk, ??P8
17:01:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.773.614.aabb
17:01:56 [eprodrom]
Zakim, aaaa is me
17:01:56 [Zakim]
+eprodrom; got it
17:01:58 [Zakim]
+??P2
17:01:59 [aaronpk]
weird
17:02:04 [Zakim]
+jasnell
17:02:07 [cwebber2]
Zakim, mute me
17:02:07 [Zakim]
sorry, cwebber2, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:02:08 [harry]
Zakim, who's making noise?
17:02:20 [Zakim]
harry, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.773.614.aabb (9%), Marilyn (40%), ??P8 (9%), jasnell (4%)
17:02:30 [cwebber2]
Zakim, aabb is me
17:02:30 [Zakim]
+cwebber2; got it
17:02:31 [harry]
Zakim, Marilyn is harry
17:02:32 [Zakim]
+harry; got it
17:02:53 [Zakim]
-??P8
17:03:16 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
17:03:27 [rhiaro]
One of the Ps would have been me, but it isn't showing when I join
17:03:29 [eprodrom]
Zakim, who is on the call?
17:03:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see eprodrom, Sandro, harry, aaronpk, cwebber2, elf-pavlik (muted), jasnell
17:03:36 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
17:03:56 [Zakim]
+??P10
17:03:59 [Zakim]
+??P8
17:04:04 [Tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P10 is me
17:04:04 [Zakim]
+Tsyesika; got it
17:04:09 [Tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
17:04:09 [Zakim]
Tsyesika should now be muted
17:04:14 [rhiaro]
Zakim, who is on the call
17:04:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', rhiaro
17:04:17 [rhiaro]
Zakim, who is on the call?
17:04:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see eprodrom, Sandro, harry, aaronpk, cwebber2, elf-pavlik (muted), jasnell, Tsyesika (muted), ??P8
17:04:31 [Zakim]
+??P11
17:04:36 [Zakim]
-??P8
17:04:37 [tantek]
zakim, ??p11 is me
17:04:37 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
17:04:45 [cwebber2]
morning
17:04:50 [Tsyesika]
afternoon
17:04:54 [cwebber2]
good day ;)
17:04:58 [tantek]
zakim, mute m
17:04:58 [Zakim]
sorry, tantek, I do not know which phone connection belongs to m
17:05:04 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
17:05:04 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
17:05:08 [Zakim]
+??P8
17:05:14 [eprodrom]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-21
17:05:23 [cwebber2]
I can scribe
17:05:24 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
17:05:25 [wilkie]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:05:25 [Zakim]
+wilkie; got it
17:05:29 [elf-pavlik]
cwebber2++
17:05:32 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 27 karma
17:05:36 [eprodrom]
scribenick cwebber2
17:05:38 [elf-pavlik]
scribenick: cwebber2
17:05:50 [Zakim]
+Ann
17:06:11 [Zakim]
+ +33.6.43.93.aacc
17:06:13 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: let's get started. According to the agenda we have to review last week's minutes
17:06:21 [cwebber2]
... I think we had an issue around our march 10 minutes
17:06:26 [cwebber2]
... but those are complete now
17:06:32 [harry]
+1
17:06:32 [eprodrom]
+1
17:06:33 [wilkie]
+1
17:06:33 [aaronpk]
+1
17:06:33 [cwebber2]
... can we approve the march 10 minutes?
17:06:34 [rhiaro]
+1
17:06:34 [cwebber2]
+1
17:06:35 [Tsyesika]
+1
17:06:39 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #social
17:06:39 [cwebber2]
... good, looks good
17:06:42 [elf-pavlik]
+1 they had no resolutions
17:06:50 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: approved 10 Mar minutes
17:06:59 [cwebber2]
... let's do the same for the april 14 minutes
17:07:04 [jasnell]
+1
17:07:04 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: approve 14 april minutes
17:07:06 [eprodrom]
+1
17:07:07 [rhiaro]
+1
17:07:08 [wilkie]
+1
17:07:08 [cwebber2]
+1
17:07:12 [Tsyesika]
+1
17:07:13 [aaronpk]
+1
17:07:17 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: approved 14 Apr minutes
17:07:18 [almereyda]
almereyda has joined #social
17:07:18 [cwebber2]
... okay good
17:07:22 [elf-pavlik]
-0 not sure if i had time to understand all resulutions
17:07:22 [cwebber2]
... nice and quick
17:07:29 [tantek]
just the f2f missing
17:07:30 [cwebber2]
... I think this means we are caught up on minutes, nice
17:07:35 [Zakim]
+ +1.509.375.aadd
17:07:46 [cwebber2]
... oh, elf-pavlik is looking to understand resolutions
17:07:53 [cwebber2]
... this is just approval of minutes
17:07:56 [tantek]
harry, any update on the f2f minutes?
17:07:58 [elf-pavlik]
+0 if -0 stops sotmething
17:07:59 [cwebber2]
... so the resolution is, approve the minutes
17:08:13 [harry]
tantek - nope, I just got back from flu-land, need to give it another shot.
17:08:18 [cwebber2]
... just trying to make sure elf-pavlik that you're okay. We don't need to stop unless you need more time to review the minutes.
17:08:25 [tantek]
get well soon harry!
17:08:36 [elf-pavlik]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-14-minutes#Summary_of_Resolutions
17:08:36 [cwebber2]
AnnB: are there issues in the minutes, elf-pavlik ?
17:08:51 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: oh there were resolutions from 4-14, okay...
17:08:55 [cwebber2]
... the question is, elf-pavlik ?
17:08:57 [elf-pavlik]
we have just one week to object
17:09:05 [cwebber2]
... I guess he's at a +0
17:09:10 [cwebber2]
... so if no problem, we'll proceed
17:09:10 [elf-pavlik]
yeah, not a big problem!
17:09:17 [cwebber2]
AnnB: we are still missing minutes from the f2f
17:09:26 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: yes that's right, I think we had a server issue
17:09:34 [bblfish]
I suppose I have an issue on Issue-19, I put that up on for todays agenda.
17:09:40 [cwebber2]
harry: I had the flu but I'll get that now that I'm back to work
17:09:44 [cwebber2]
... I have an open action
17:09:46 [AnnB]
glad you're feeling better, Harry
17:09:47 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: great
17:10:04 [AnnB]
can you also plz confirm the Zakim reservation, etc for socialIG?
17:10:04 [cwebber2]
... next telecon is next tuesday at the same time (april 28), I believe I will chair it
17:10:11 [cwebber2]
... which puts us back on our regular chair schedule
17:10:21 [cwebber2]
... unless there are objections or reasons to change, let's plan on this meeting next week
17:10:34 [ericstephan]
ericstephan has joined #social
17:10:38 [cwebber2]
... the other issue to discuss quickly is the upcoming face to face
17:10:51 [cwebber2]
... want to address it, though not in the agenda, because this is usually when we address upcoming f2fs
17:10:59 [elf-pavlik]
let's start adding things to agenda page!
17:10:59 [cwebber2]
... do we have issues for the upcoming f2f?
17:11:05 [harry]
q+
17:11:10 [cwebber2]
AnnB: the question is, what will the agenda be?
17:11:25 [cwebber2]
... seems like those who were particularly active on the technical issues won't be there
17:11:29 [cwebber2]
... what can we do to make it productive
17:11:31 [elf-pavlik]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-04#Goals_for_the_meeting
17:11:38 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: excellent question
17:11:43 [cwebber2]
... let's look at the wiki page
17:11:48 [cwebber2]
... we do have a wiki page for the event
17:12:05 [cwebber2]
... we have demos on the social api candidates
17:12:09 [cwebber2]
... that will be the main issue
17:12:11 [eprodrom]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-04
17:12:26 [cwebber2]
harry: I think we can't get a resolution on the api because we're missing quite a few folks
17:12:41 [tantek]
zakim, unmute me
17:12:41 [Zakim]
tantek should no longer be muted
17:12:44 [cwebber2]
... but wedo have quite a few people, including people who don't always make it to meetings, but I think we can get european input
17:12:52 [tantek]
q+ re: demos should focus on approved user stories
17:12:53 [harry]
We still need to get written candidates for the APIs
17:12:57 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I would really like to see us with written candidates at this time
17:13:02 [eprodrom]
q?
17:13:05 [cwebber2]
... we do have the activitypump candidate, which has been updated
17:13:06 [eprodrom]
ack ??P8
17:13:09 [harry]
ActivityPump is now ready, micropub has been written, not sure re the rest of the approaches
17:13:11 [harry]
ack harry
17:13:22 [harry]
Zakim, ??P8 is rhiaro
17:13:22 [Zakim]
+rhiaro; got it
17:13:28 [sandro]
q+
17:13:42 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
17:13:42 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to discuss demos should focus on approved user stories
17:13:46 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: while you work on that I will ack tantek
17:13:53 [cwebber2]
tantek: in reviewing demos from the last face to face
17:14:00 [harry]
sandro - if you have an update on the Solid approach by the Paris f2f that would be grand
17:14:01 [cwebber2]
... had a pretty good mix of candidate demos there
17:14:09 [rhiaro]
q-
17:14:15 [cwebber2]
... any demos should list up front which user stories they are demo'ing
17:14:23 [cwebber2]
... that will show what we're accomplishing
17:14:31 [elf-pavlik]
tantek, could you please add this comment to f2f wiki page?
17:14:35 [cwebber2]
... if that doesn't show the user stories, that will be misleading
17:14:42 [cwebber2]
... all our user stories involve some interaction
17:14:56 [cwebber2]
... so if all you're doing is something like a todo list
17:15:01 [cwebber2]
... that's nothing to do with our user stories
17:15:04 [ericstephan]
:-) Hi AnnB
17:15:10 [cwebber2]
... if you're going to do a demo, please list that and what you're demoing
17:15:12 [cwebber2]
+q
17:15:15 [sandro]
harry, andrei's been busy writing... https://github.com/linkeddata/SoLiD
17:15:18 [cwebber2]
... if you can't do that, don't demo
17:15:24 [elf-pavlik]
sandro++
17:15:25 [harry]
+1 great
17:15:27 [Loqi]
sandro has 9 karma
17:15:28 [cwebber2]
... because you aren't contributing towards doing a social api
17:15:30 [eprodrom]
q?
17:15:35 [eprodrom]
ack sandro
17:15:43 [cwebber2]
sandro: I just wanted to address the agenda of the meeting
17:15:49 [cwebber2]
... I want to address the personal agenad
17:16:00 [cwebber2]
... try to get a meeting of the minds on the issues that look to be showstoppers
17:16:03 [ericstephan]
@AnnB no prob, it was just to obvious, that's what tripped me up
17:16:06 [cwebber2]
... several things we've brought up
17:16:13 [cwebber2]
... things like "we have to solve this to move forward"
17:16:24 [cwebber2]
... format we're posting, how we're doing extensibility, etc
17:16:30 [elf-pavlik]
aaronpk will come
17:16:43 [cwebber2]
... maybe if we can get indiewebcamp and ldp people to look at differences
17:16:50 [elf-pavlik]
Tsyesika will also participate
17:16:52 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I'll be participating by phone
17:16:56 [Tsyesika]
i'll be at the europe f2f
17:16:58 [cwebber2]
... tsyesika will be there too
17:17:03 [harry]
great, we'll have all primary candidates!
17:17:08 [bblfish]
q+
17:17:09 [cwebber2]
sandro: I'm not looking for a decision given lack of people there
17:17:16 [AnnB]
q+
17:17:17 [cwebber2]
... not sure we have enough stakeholders
17:17:20 [elf-pavlik]
AFAIK rhiaro also has good grip on IndieWeb stack
17:17:29 [cwebber2]
... at least look at what we need to do to show one is better than the other
17:17:35 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber2
17:17:36 [AnnB]
q-
17:17:40 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber
17:18:04 [eprodrom]
cwebber2: as for showing demos, Tsyesika will be at the event
17:18:13 [AnnB]
I just wanted to say we should schedule the agenda / demos, with sensitivity to time zone .. so people not attending F2F have best chance to attend remotely
17:18:26 [eprodrom]
cwebber2: priorities have been emphasised on working on the spec rather than on implementations
17:19:53 [eprodrom]
cwebber2: demos can be done from home, discussion of specs are helpful for f2f
17:20:02 [eprodrom]
q?
17:20:02 [Loqi]
Aboyet made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-04-21]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83744&oldid=83743
17:20:18 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: yes i would favor this as well, because activitypump is relatively new, a melding of several efforts
17:20:23 [eprodrom]
ack bblfish
17:20:25 [cwebber2]
... I would like to see that discussion process there
17:20:34 [cwebber2]
bblfish: sorry for having been offline for a while, was snowed under
17:21:06 [cwebber2]
... yes from my perspective it will be interesting if going on what cwebber2 was saying is to see if what other people doing LDP are doing and how we understand the problem space
17:21:25 [cwebber2]
... for the larger group, to see what the possibilities there are, it might be a technology everyone there is familiar with
17:21:33 [elf-pavlik]
melvster also wants to demo some LDP / SoLiD
17:21:40 [cwebber2]
... to see what the detail for what others might be, there may be things we haven't tried yet
17:21:51 [cwebber2]
... good to play around with ideas from other communities and see how to do that in an LDP land
17:21:54 [cwebber2]
... see if it would work
17:21:58 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #social
17:22:00 [melvster]
elf-pavlik: yes, booked my flights and hotel
17:22:05 [elf-pavlik]
melvster++
17:22:08 [Loqi]
melvster has 14 karma
17:22:17 [cwebber2]
... last time we did demos, thus this time we should paint a broader picture around a certain activity
17:22:29 [melvster]
did yet get a response about applying to join the group, hope someone could look at it :)
17:22:30 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: great, sounds like we have quite a bit of expectations for the upcoming event
17:22:34 [cwebber2]
... tthat makes a lot of sense
17:22:38 [sandro]
q+
17:22:39 [cwebber2]
... so we have a lot to go on there
17:22:52 [cwebber2]
... I'd like to go on to actions and issues
17:22:54 [eprodrom]
ack sandro
17:23:34 [cwebber2]
sandro: yes this is a quick thing, I wonder if we can set a deadline like a week before the meeting for people to try to have a reviewed draft of their proposals and really if everyone who cares at all can review those drafts for the meeting for discussion points and etc
17:23:46 [cwebber2]
... can we accept a deadline like that, and can we also commit to reading the draft in say, a week
17:23:49 [elf-pavlik]
+1 reading submitted drafts!
17:24:01 [bblfish]
I am happy to help with SoLiD
17:24:03 [cwebber2]
... and I'm willing to commit to that on having a solid / reading a draft a week bfore
17:24:12 [elf-pavlik]
i'll add it to next week agenda!
17:24:13 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so a week before the meeting would more or less be next monday (or tues)
17:24:21 [cwebber2]
... so we already have an activitypump submission
17:24:31 [Tsyesika]
i am still working but i can do that
17:24:39 [cwebber2]
sandro: I hear Tsyesika is already working on the activitypump submission, can she get to that point
17:24:43 [Tsyesika]
it's pretty close right now
17:24:45 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I think it's good enough for discussion yes
17:24:46 [Tsyesika]
i think
17:24:50 [dret]
dret has joined #social
17:24:57 [cwebber2]
tantek: it would be similar for a deadline for demos
17:25:13 [cwebber2]
... there may be a difference in expectations
17:25:27 [cwebber2]
... if you want to demo, make a listing of what you'll demo a week before the meeting
17:25:49 [cwebber2]
... anyone can do technology demos, not interesting
17:25:56 [cwebber2]
... user story demos, interesting
17:26:05 [cwebber2]
for the record I don't agree on user demos or tech demos
17:26:06 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.335.aaee
17:26:09 [cwebber2]
vs
17:26:10 [Zakim]
- +1.408.335.aaee
17:26:14 [melvster]
FYI: I have proof of concept of : instant message / decentralized wallet / payment processor / task manager / integrations ... trying to get as much as possible ready for Paris
17:26:26 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: can we set a deadline on specs and demo deadlines
17:26:29 [tantek]
melvster - which user stories?
17:26:33 [elf-pavlik]
+1 specs -1 demos
17:26:36 [cwebber2]
sandro: I don't agree with deadline on demos don't think that's mportant
17:26:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.335.aaff
17:26:54 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think that's important, if you can't link to a user story on demos, do you even understand what you're doing in this group
17:27:07 [cwebber2]
sandro: I think you only demo something if it answers a question about one of the proposals
17:27:19 [cwebber2]
... eg if I don't have an understanding on how to join a list
17:27:22 [cwebber2]
... show that off
17:27:42 [cwebber2]
tantek: yoes, that'scoped to user storiess
17:27:48 [cwebber2]
sandro: but that will come up on review
17:27:51 [AnnB]
I appreciate Tantek's effort to be focused and organized... But ".. do you even understand what you're doing in this group.. " sounds harsh to me
17:28:10 [cwebber2]
tantek: that's the point of voting on them, to focus the group
17:28:11 [melvster]
tantek: i think probably a few, I could probably code up quite a few user stories on the day, if requested
17:28:21 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: let's step back, can we get consensus on specs ready for next tuesday
17:28:29 [Tsyesika]
AnnB++
17:28:32 [melvster]
tantek: SolID really answers all the user stories
17:28:32 [Loqi]
AnnB has 18 karma
17:28:35 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: have specs for Social API candidates ready for review by 28 Apr 2015 meeting
17:28:40 [eprodrom]
+1
17:28:41 [Tsyesika]
+1 i can
17:28:42 [elf-pavlik]
+1
17:28:44 [cwebber2]
+1
17:28:49 [rhiaro]
+1
17:28:51 [sandro]
+1
17:28:57 [tantek]
melvster - then it should be easy to focus on and demo user stories instead of other things
17:29:03 [aaronpk]
+1 boy do i have my work cut out for me ;)
17:29:03 [ericstephan]
0 I'm new no fair voting for me :-)
17:29:17 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: in tthis case a spec is something thatt explains the api
17:29:22 [KevinMarks_]
KevinMarks_ has joined #social
17:29:27 [melvster]
tantek: im happy to demo anything anyone wants me to, or build something on the spot, or nothing at all, happy just to hang out :)
17:29:30 [bblfish]
+1 I'd be happy to help Sandro and teams on the SoLiD
17:29:32 [cwebber2]
... and demos are implementations of that api with a demo of it
17:29:46 [cwebber2]
... seems like we have a strong consensus to have drafts on spec
17:29:49 [cwebber2]
... don't have to be finalized
17:30:02 [cwebber2]
... so we hope to have candidates ready
17:30:02 [Loqi]
Estephan made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83745&oldid=83713
17:30:20 [cwebber2]
tantek: another reality, neither you nor I will be there, who will chair?
17:30:24 [cwebber2]
... arnaud will chairing
17:30:25 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: have specs for Social API candidates ready for review by 28 Apr 2015 meeting
17:30:25 [sandro]
bblfish, see https://github.com/linkeddata/SoLiD
17:30:30 [cwebber2]
... it's up to him to focus the drive of it
17:30:35 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: that's true
17:30:44 [harry]
It looks like W3C might fund me last minute to go to meeting, so I'll make sure this all gets transmitted to Arnaud.
17:30:51 [bblfish]
thanks @sandro
17:30:57 [bblfish]
see you on gitter
17:30:59 [cwebber2]
... I think what we're proposing is that if people have proposals, out of courtesy for the group, giving people a chance to review and comment by a week is polite
17:31:02 [cwebber2]
tantek: agree
17:31:08 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: have demos for Social API candidates ready for review by 28 Apr 2015 meeting
17:31:14 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: as second proposal, to have demos for social api candidates ready for review
17:31:19 [eprodrom]
+0
17:31:19 [cwebber2]
... by next week
17:31:23 [harry]
+1
17:31:23 [cwebber2]
+qa
17:31:24 [cwebber2]
er
17:31:25 [cwebber2]
+q
17:31:28 [cwebber2]
-q a
17:31:32 [tantek]
explicitly listing what user stories are to be demod
17:31:33 [Tsyesika]
hm
17:31:34 [tantek]
+1
17:31:44 [cwebber2]
AnnB: so what does that mean, voting for demos or you don't have one
17:31:54 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: personally I think this means showing things
17:31:58 [cwebber2]
... specs
17:31:59 [aaronpk]
+1 with explicit listing of which user stories are being demos
17:32:01 [cwebber2]
... rather than demos
17:32:11 [Tsyesika]
+0 i won't be able to build a demo for activitypump
17:32:12 [sandro]
it's not okay to outlaw last-minute demos.
17:32:13 [cwebber2]
I have a counter-proposal
17:32:15 [sandro]
if they are germaine
17:32:16 [Tsyesika]
by the meeting
17:32:18 [cwebber2]
on the queue
17:32:40 [bblfish]
q+
17:32:40 [sandro]
-1 as phrased... Let the chairs figure out what's germaine
17:32:44 [cwebber2]
tantek: you can't really evaluate a social api candidate to see what these can do
17:32:47 [cwebber2]
-0
17:33:03 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: that feeling is that this evaluation won't happen entirely at this face to face
17:33:17 [cwebber2]
... I absolutely think we have to have demos, but I kinda feel like we need to get started with the specs
17:33:20 [bblfish]
agree, this is a place to help draw the big picture of what is possible
17:33:29 [cwebber2]
tantek: yes I guess we have a different approach, I'd like to see that we have things working
17:33:34 [cwebber2]
... especially in this space
17:33:40 [cwebber2]
... we've had this convo before
17:33:43 [KevinMarks]
https://twitter.com/zahedab/status/590562323854655488
17:33:44 [Loqi]
@zahedab :: #ECMAScript @BrendanEich We Implement as we standardize so we don't have specs that don't implement #FluentConf
17:33:49 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I agree
17:33:58 [cwebber2]
hey, I have an adjusted proposal
17:34:27 [melvster]
imho SoLiD is a universal API, which should be compatible with any API this group creates, and I think could handle 90%+ of use cases
17:34:30 [tantek]
Frankly I'm not really interested in spec / candidate API discussions that are disconnected from user stories
17:34:49 [tantek]
melvster - so was WSDL - I don't believe in "universal APIs"
17:34:52 [elf-pavlik]
cwebber2: when we go through specifications people can ask for clarifications on how they work with collected user stories
17:35:06 [aaronpk]
universal APIs aren't useful, because they can do anything, they don't really do anything specifically
17:35:09 [tantek]
and asking people for real world demos is a good way of filtering out such claims
17:35:20 [tantek]
universalAPIs--
17:35:21 [Loqi]
universalAPIs has -1 karma
17:35:26 [aaronpk]
at some point you have to make a decision and write things down into an actual spec
17:35:39 [aaronpk]
see: OAuth 2.0 spec that was eventually renamed to a "framework" because there isn't enough there
17:35:44 [melvster]
tantek: fair enough! My goal is to show you running code on top of SoLiD, and for you to say, 'I like that, I want to use it'
17:36:00 [cwebber2]
-q
17:36:08 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: we lost you at the end
17:36:09 [tantek]
melvster - we've had this discussion before - the user stories that are approved are on the wiki
17:36:10 [cwebber2]
I'm done
17:36:14 [cwebber2]
did you lose me entirely?
17:36:21 [KevinMarks]
hah
17:36:27 [tantek]
and can you demo them with a real world site, e.g. your own personal site, and produce permalinks for all the outputs?
17:36:34 [tantek]
otherwise it's all handwaving
17:36:37 [cwebber2]
did you miss my suggestion?
17:36:38 [melvster]
yes to all
17:36:39 [harry]
q+
17:36:40 [elf-pavlik]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-28#Next_F2F
17:36:58 [cwebber2]
okay, adjusted proposal, in text:
17:37:00 [elf-pavlik]
AnnB++
17:37:02 [Loqi]
AnnB has 19 karma
17:37:07 [KevinMarks]
AnnB++
17:37:08 [bblfish]
q-
17:37:11 [Loqi]
AnnB has 20 karma
17:37:15 [cwebber2]
why not show the spec, tie it to the user stories, and do demonstrations if useful of what people are asking
17:37:17 [bblfish]
AnnB++
17:37:20 [Loqi]
AnnB has 21 karma
17:37:36 [cwebber2]
AnnB: how about people show what they want to do whether demo or spec to the agenda
17:37:54 [cwebber2]
tantek: last time that made it bloated, how about we leave it to the chairs
17:38:02 [cwebber2]
... a ton of things on the agenda
17:38:12 [eprodrom]
q?
17:38:17 [bblfish]
I think that's a good thing, we propose what we present, and the chairs decide
17:38:26 [cwebber2]
harry: I'm fine with letting arnaud handle the agenda for the f2f
17:38:36 [tantek]
I've updated https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-04#Agenda
17:38:54 [cwebber2]
... the face to face is useful to the high level demos
17:38:57 [cwebber2]
... of the specs
17:39:03 [KevinMarks]
demos are very clarifying
17:39:11 [cwebber2]
... we'll use it to solidify the activitypump, micropub things...
17:39:17 [cwebber2]
... but decisions will happen *afterwards*
17:39:21 [KevinMarks]
running code, then rough consensus
17:39:23 [cwebber2]
... at a teleconf everyone can do
17:39:32 [cwebber2]
sandro: I agree in a sense there
17:39:40 [cwebber2]
... I don't think the actual decision to pick one as-is
17:39:49 [cwebber2]
... the agenda is to get everyone to understand the three candidates
17:39:53 [elf-pavlik]
sandro+++
17:39:55 [bblfish]
sandro++
17:39:56 [cwebber2]
... so we can make the three candidates make sense
17:39:57 [Loqi]
sandro has 10 karma
17:39:58 [Loqi]
sandro has 11 karma
17:39:59 [cwebber2]
sandro++
17:40:02 [Loqi]
Pelf made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-04-28]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83747&oldid=0
17:40:03 [Loqi]
Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83748&oldid=83745
17:40:04 [Loqi]
sandro has 12 karma
17:40:16 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: is it fair to say that our previous face to face was a lot of demos
17:40:22 [bblfish]
++ for sandro on having the agenda be that we get to know very well the APIs of each of the proposals
17:40:27 [cwebber2]
... and anything that we actually come out with will be an actual evolution of one of those apis
17:40:42 [cwebber2]
... are we at the point where we're convinced that most are implementable?
17:40:49 [cwebber2]
... so we can hammer out the next version
17:40:50 [bblfish]
q+
17:40:58 [harry]
ack harry
17:41:13 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think the latter, there's a big difference of opinion for people who are actually doing things running on their sites right now vs someday
17:41:22 [cwebber2]
... I want you to understand my api proposal vs
17:41:28 [cwebber2]
... we've built stuff that does this
17:41:34 [cwebber2]
... disconnect in methodology
17:41:44 [KevinMarks]
it's legislation vs documentation as usual
17:41:48 [harry]
I feel we are circling a bit
17:42:00 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I'm a bit concerned about how I'd spend my time as an implementer, I don't like having to track evolving specs
17:42:07 [harry]
Basically, it should be obvious - we need a single FPWD relatively soon-ish.
17:42:10 [cwebber2]
... esp when we're talking about 20, 40 user stories
17:42:16 [cwebber2]
... rewriting that code seems like asking a lot
17:42:24 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think it's a big challenge to get anything that works
17:42:44 [cwebber2]
... nobody actually demo'ed a bitg user story
17:42:44 [cwebber2]
... some demoed more than others
17:42:45 [cwebber2]
... and some were just tech demos
17:42:57 [bblfish]
q?
17:43:04 [jasnell_]
jasnell_ has joined #social
17:43:07 [cwebber2]
... I don't see how we believe that anyone has built something that can implement all those user stories
17:43:13 [harry]
q+
17:43:18 [cwebber2]
... there's no evidence
17:43:36 [cwebber2]
... that's what people say every 5 years
17:43:43 [cwebber2]
... you can do anything with my xml, whatever
17:43:44 [cwebber2]
... and you can't.
17:43:47 [KevinMarks]
a universal API - HTML?
17:43:54 [cwebber2]
... people are saying "you can do this" vs "show me what's owrking"
17:44:00 [eprodrom]
q?
17:44:21 [cwebber2]
bblfish: I think that the previous chair was saying correctly we have limited time, of course you can say from architecture diagram whether soemthing works or not
17:44:28 [jasnell__]
jasnell__ has joined #social
17:44:30 [cwebber2]
tantek: diagrams don't make products
17:44:35 [harry]
I think tantek is likely right there in the general sense.
17:44:37 [cwebber2]
bblfish: we have major linked data clouds
17:44:44 [cwebber2]
... deployed by big companies, actual evidence
17:44:48 [cwebber2]
... eg linked data protocol
17:44:53 [cwebber2]
tantek: you yourself aren't using one
17:45:00 [wilkie]
let's just use OStatus. people use that right now lol
17:45:04 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: bblfish, tantek, I'm sorry
17:45:18 [AnnB]
eprodrom++
17:45:19 [cwebber2]
bblfish: I'm waiting on what the specs are before I can implement
17:45:21 [Loqi]
eprodrom has 13 karma
17:45:30 [cwebber2]
I'm not scribing a squabble
17:45:47 [tantek]
I don't believe architecture diagrams nor claims of wide enterprise deployment
17:45:50 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: we have questions on whether we are doing specs, demos, or both, because we have no consesnsu
17:45:54 [cwebber2]
put on the agenda for next week
17:45:55 [harry]
We should do demos and spec reviews with whoever is actually there
17:45:58 [harry]
ack harry
17:46:04 [cwebber2]
... we do have items on our agenda for today
17:46:07 [tantek]
if you have a solution that you think works, run it on your own site. if you can't do that, why should we believe you
17:46:09 [harry]
+1 moving on agenda
17:46:11 [elf-pavlik]
eprodrom++
17:46:14 [Loqi]
eprodrom has 14 karma
17:46:16 [cwebber2]
(well we did agree to specs by monday/tues at least)
17:46:24 [eprodrom]
q?
17:46:27 [cwebber2]
... do we have any updates on open actions or issues
17:46:31 [eprodrom]
ack bblfish
17:47:11 [cwebber2]
bblfish: we all agree we can do it pragmatically
17:47:32 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: do you have an open issue/action?
17:47:37 [cwebber2]
... issue 19?
17:47:51 [eprodrom]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-21
17:47:56 [elf-pavlik]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-21#Additional_Agenda_Items
17:48:01 [cwebber2]
bblfish: yes, thanks, I put up 19 seems to say that the conslusion was that people should send email
17:48:05 [cwebber2]
email, irc, wiki should work
17:48:07 [AnnB]
q+
17:48:26 [cwebber2]
... how do we deal with if emails aren't read?
17:48:30 [KevinMarks]
sounds liek a webmention use case to me
17:48:34 [cwebber2]
... it has not been clear to me how the wiki replaces email
17:48:40 [melvster]
harry: could you please review my request to join the group (from about 10 days ago) when you are feeling a bit better :)
17:48:45 [KevinMarks]
wiki edits -> irc notifications
17:49:02 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I think I can address this, that if there are items posted to the email address not addressed, or irc or wiki, we make sure it gets to the right people
17:49:09 [harry]
Melvster I notified the chairs that we have some new IE applications. We'll get to it by next meeting.
17:49:14 [melvster]
ty!
17:49:21 [elf-pavlik]
harry++
17:49:22 [cwebber2]
... so if someone were to post to the public ML to someone who has not seen it
17:49:23 [Loqi]
too much karma!
17:49:27 [cwebber2]
... makesure they see it
17:49:35 [cwebber2]
bblfish: okay it's not that the wiki is a callback
17:49:41 [cwebber2]
... the chairs are a fallback
17:49:47 [cwebber2]
heh, callback, sorry
17:50:01 [cwebber2]
... eg in user stories needed help on way things were going
17:50:03 [harry]
I believe those user-story discussions are supposed to be part of the IG, not the WG bblfish
17:50:06 [cwebber2]
... then we have to go through chairs
17:50:19 [harry]
Also, note there is no responsibility of people to agree with each other, although we do aim at consensus.
17:50:26 [elf-pavlik]
bblfish we continue with User Stories on github! https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr/issues
17:50:50 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
17:51:00 [cwebber2]
harry: we've discussed it, it's fine if people are not reading email
17:51:02 [jasnell]
we've spent nearly this entire call discussing process and agenda stuff
17:51:15 [cwebber2]
bblfish: it's in the doc that chairs must participate
17:51:22 [cwebber2]
harry: if you want to complain, compalin to wendy seltzer
17:51:26 [cwebber2]
let's not spend time on this please
17:51:31 [cwebber2]
we are running out of time
17:51:45 [elf-pavlik]
PROPOSAL: finish issue-19 for today
17:52:08 [bblfish]
ack bblfish
17:52:10 [harry]
We cannot force people to read your emails or respond to you bblfish
17:52:17 [AnnB]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-21#Coordinating_with_IG
17:52:23 [rhiaro]
AnnB++
17:52:23 [harry]
I suggest you bring up your user-story to the IG so we can keep this WG meetings productive
17:52:26 [Loqi]
AnnB has 22 karma
17:52:28 [cwebber2]
AnnB: I want to support bblfish thought though has been discused a lot
17:52:29 [elf-pavlik]
AnnB++
17:52:41 [cwebber2]
... in the IG we've discussed that people put their wiki username how they like to be communicated with
17:52:53 [cwebber2]
... so fi you look at the agenda you see how we have preferred contact info
17:53:24 [cwebber2]
... I had a question because I"m brand new to github, so I'm having fun with it, put stuff there and didn't get responses
17:53:35 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
17:53:50 [cwebber2]
... it's not the same as how you communicate with the whole group, if we see that someone is not part of the thread
17:53:56 [cwebber2]
... then chairs take action to ping them
17:54:03 [bblfish]
ok, thanks
17:54:08 [cwebber2]
... and gratitude to the chairs for being willing to do that!
17:54:37 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: yes we don't want media to get in the way, we're all committed to making it work
17:54:44 [cwebber2]
... we do have open issues on activitystreams
17:54:50 [cwebber2]
... have about 5 minutes left to discuss
17:54:55 [cwebber2]
... eg issue #31
17:54:55 [AnnB]
so -- will y'all go put your contact preferences in your wiki User Name, please?
17:55:02 [rhiaro]
issue-31
17:55:02 [trackbot]
issue-31 -- Refactor "target", "origin" and audience targeting properties -- open
17:55:02 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/31
17:55:04 [cwebber2]
... jasnell, if on call, can clarify?
17:55:11 [cwebber2]
jasnell: this is a 2 part question
17:55:18 [cwebber2]
... we can split it up if makes it easier
17:55:22 [elf-pavlik]
TOPIC: Activity Streams 2.0
17:55:24 [elf-pavlik]
https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr/issues
17:55:30 [elf-pavlik]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-21#Activity_Streams
17:55:33 [cwebber2]
... audience targeting make use of to: : bcc:
17:55:47 [cwebber2]
... this uses target and etc allowing who gets notified
17:56:02 [eprodrom]
q+
17:56:04 [cwebber2]
... current system is currently complicated with primary vs secondary audience
17:56:11 [cwebber2]
... simplify to cc: and bcc:
17:56:16 [AnnB]
q-
17:56:18 [cwebber2]
remove to and bto
17:56:23 [cwebber2]
... first change I'd like to make
17:56:26 [cwebber2]
... discussion on that
17:56:31 [cwebber2]
... second one has to do with target property
17:56:36 [cwebber2]
... which we can have a second convo about
17:56:41 [cwebber2]
... first about audience targeting
17:56:49 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: as someone who has info on it from a pump.io standpoint
17:56:52 [danbri1]
danbri1 has joined #social
17:56:55 [cwebber2]
... we use the to and cc pretty consistently
17:57:10 [cwebber2]
... to: is used if directly sending an activity to a particular person, direct messaging
17:57:42 [cwebber2]
... Cc: is if broadcasting, and should go into the inboxes of them, but not the "it's directly for you and you must see it"
17:57:56 [cwebber2]
... this comes down to in practice that stuff that is Cc'ed goes to your feed, stuff to you goes to a direct messaging box
17:58:10 [cwebber2]
... what we'd have here is the cc would have to carry the weight for both
17:58:18 [cwebber2]
... we may lose the semantic of "it's directly for you"
17:58:27 [cwebber2]
jasnell: ok
17:58:41 [cwebber2]
... I'm fine with leaving it, my goal is to simplify the vocab as much as possible
17:58:49 [cwebber2]
... that's really where I'm trying to push it
17:58:57 [cwebber2]
... so the q is there a way to get the same thing
17:59:00 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: can we leave audience targeting for when we get to federation? (IRC only)
17:59:01 [cwebber2]
... with just cc
17:59:04 [cwebber2]
... a mention object/
17:59:05 [cwebber2]
?
17:59:18 [cwebber2]
... is there a way to use just cc but differentiate it
17:59:23 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so if we use mention, that might do it
17:59:34 [cwebber2]
jasnell: jsut give it some thought, don't need a decision straight away
17:59:37 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: ok great.
17:59:46 [cwebber2]
... we are at the top of the hour, best to call it
17:59:52 [Zakim]
-jasnell
17:59:53 [Zakim]
-tantek
17:59:54 [cwebber2]
... thanks to all for participating, see you next week
17:59:54 [Zakim]
-eprodrom
17:59:55 [eprodrom]
Thanks all
17:59:55 [Zakim]
-rhiaro
17:59:56 [Zakim]
- +1.509.375.aadd
17:59:58 [Zakim]
-Tsyesika
17:59:58 [Zakim]
- +33.6.43.93.aacc
17:59:59 [Zakim]
-cwebber2
18:00:00 [Zakim]
-elf-pavlik
18:00:03 [bblfish]
thanks
18:00:03 [Zakim]
-aaronpk
18:00:03 [wilkie]
thanks
18:00:07 [Zakim]
-wilkie
18:00:11 [Zakim]
-harry
18:00:26 [Zakim]
-Sandro
18:01:02 [Zakim]
- +1.408.335.aaff
18:01:52 [cwebber2]
I don't remember how to end the meeting
18:02:10 [cwebber2]
oh
18:02:13 [cwebber2]
trackbot, end meeting
18:02:13 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:02:13 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.514.554.aaaa, Sandro, aaronpk, +1.773.614.aabb, eprodrom, jasnell, elf-pavlik, cwebber2, harry, Tsyesika, tantek, wilkie, Ann,
18:02:16 [Zakim]
... +33.6.43.93.aacc, +1.509.375.aadd, rhiaro, +1.408.335.aaee, +1.408.335.aaff
18:02:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:02:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/21-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:02:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:02:22 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items