W3C

- DRAFT -

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

15 Dec 2015

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, shepazu
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
eprodrom

Contents


I'll do it

<tantek> scribe: eprodrom

tantek: let's get started. Participation limited to members.

<aaronpk> zakim only knows who's on IRC

<aaronpk> oh and it's not even correct

<aaronpk> RIP zakim

tantek: eprodrom, you had an item about IE application

eprodrom: we're working on IEs and re-evaluating how we do IEs. We want the current application backlog to be part of that, so we'll be evaluating over the next few weeks.

approval of minutes from 2015-12-08

https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-08-minutes

<cwebber2> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<cwebber2> just read :)

PROPOSAL: approve minutes of 2015-12-08

<rhiaro> +1

+1

<jasnell> +1

<aaronpk> +1

RESOLUTION: approve minutes of 2015-12-08

Face to Face in March 2016

tantek: we have a date set at the December F2F
... I'd like to see us confirm the date
... dates are march 16 and 17

<rhiaro> were we gonna email the list too?

PROPOSAL: Face to face meeting at MIT in March 16 and 17 2016

sandro: I'd like to see more RSVPs so we know who will actually be there

tantek: how long should we wait

sandro: get all RSVPs this week?

tantek: delay another week?

sandro: please RSVP now

tantek: you have one week to RSVP or indicate objection

PROPOSAL: RSVP or indicate problems with F2F date by Jan 5

+1

<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-03-16#Participation

<tantek> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-15]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87338&oldid=87336

<cwebber2> +1

sandro: +1

<rhiaro> +1

<jasnell> +0 (no input, not sure I'll be able to go)

RESOLUTION: RSVP or indicate problems with F2F date by Jan 5

tantek: (or sooner)

Next telcon (12/22 and 12/29)

tantek: upcoming telcons will be during holiday period
... this tends to be lighter when people are on vacation

<aaronpk> both are fine for me

<rhiaro> 0 no opinion on either... will show up if there's a call

<jasnell> prefer no more calls this year

tantek: should we have a telcon on these days? none or 22 or 29 or both

non

none

<cwebber2> I would also prefer none

<ben_thatmustbeme> Either are fine with me

<jasnell> won't be here the next two weeks

<cwebber2> it's going to be crazy over here

<aaronpk> actually preference is only 22nd, but okay with none

tantek: I see 3 votes for none, 1 for the 22nd, and 1 no opinion
... if there's no other input, seems like majority is in favour of none

ben_thatmustbeme: I said either are fine

tantek: that makes 2 no opinions
... seems to be a strong bias towards having none

<sandro> (fine with any options)

RESOLUTION: Skipping telcons on 12/22 and 12/29, next telcon on 5 Jan 2016

<Loqi> I added a countdown for 1/5 12:00am (#5780)

<cwebber2> :)

<Loqi> you're welcome

Activity Streams 2.0

tantek: everyone was asked to give CR blocking issues by this meeting
... jasnell, have we addressed all blocking issues?

jasnell: we have 4 open proposals

https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/261

<jasnell> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/261

<jasnell> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/269

<jasnell> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/276

<jasnell> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/277

jasnell: don't believe we have any blockers

<cwebber2> we agreed at f2f that the "expires" one is something interesting to explore but definitely not a CR blocker

tantek: if these belong in the spec, they are blockers
... we can consider them non-blockers if there are non-normative changes

jasnell: Only 276 is normative, changes a SHOULD to a MUST

tantek: 277 would be a normative change

jasnell: I wouldn't consider that a blocker for CR

tantek: we have to close issues to resolve all open substantive issues

<Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-03-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87339&oldid=87337

<Loqi> Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-03-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87340&oldid=87339

<Loqi> Aaronpk made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-03-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87341&oldid=87340

tantek: 261 may be editorial

sandro: I need to think that over

eprodrom: I think we can resolve some of these during the call

<tantek> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/269

tantek: Let's make progress where we can

<cwebber2> I have something to say on this one

tantek: time boxed by 10 min

cwebber: tsyesika and I had a lot of conversation about what we can do about transient and expirable activities
... I wasn't convinced about expires at the F2F
... but I'm increasingly convinced
... so we could mark it at risk

jasnell: I thought we could just leave it as a non-blocker

tantek: we have to call it one way or the other

<jasnell> propose closing the issue until it's figured out later

<melvster> jasnell++

<Loqi> jasnell has 40 karma

<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to say I would also be open to this being an extension

PROPOSAL: close issue 269

<melvster> +1

<cwebber2> +1

shepazu: could also consider moving this to v2
... will maintain continuity

<melvster> v2? of I thought AS2 was v2 ...

<cwebber2> I'm fine with that, but if that makes this convo more complex

<cwebber2> I'd say just close it.

PROPOSAL: close issue 269 unchanged

<sandro> -1 okay with closing it, with the theory that we can add it as an extension, although this particular thing is extremely hard to add as an extensions, since it can't be silently igored

+1

<sandro> -0 okay with closing it, with the theory that we can add it as an extension, although this particular thing is extremely hard to add as an extensions, since it can't be silently igored

<melvster> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<bengo> -1 It's important to have 'expires' as part of object authoring/representation (by end-users) and not just processing requirements (of silos/etc)/extensions

<cwebber2> :(

<sandro> (my -1 was a typo)

<sandro> (bengo is not in the WG, so chair is not counting his vote)

<bengo> (yep)

tantek: don't recognize objections from non-members

RESOLUTION: close issue 269 unchanged

<cwebber2> would be happy to work with bengo to make an extension

tantek: encourage cwebber2 to make this work as an extension
... 276 is next

<jasnell> btw, updated the working drafts today based on the decision at the f2f (finally got evan's id in there)

<tantek> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/276

jasnell: 276 requires valid AS to use vocab
... SHOULD use AS2 vocabulary -and- other vocabularies, if you use those other vocabularies
... proposal is to say MUST instead of SHOULD

<cwebber2> I think should is fine

jasnell: SHOULD is probably strong enough

PROPOSAL: close issue 276 without change

<melvster> +1

<cwebber2> +1

jasnell: I'd like to have input from Rene

tantek: you can object to this

<jasnell> -1 would prefer to allow Rene to speak on this before closing

<tantek> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/277

jasnell: 277 removes the Actor type
... it's an abstract supertype
... unusual to implement but otherwise not used
... would remove this to make it simpler

cwebber2: even if this is not directly used, it's still valuable for structuring
... it's not the end of the world, though

ben_thatmustbeme: is there any other mechanism we can use to say, this is an abstract type?

jasnell: that's possible, but not a current notion

eprodrom: similar to Content type, which we removed

tantek: we're over time

<cwebber2> (jasnell, if we did stick with abstract types, shouldn't activity be one as well?)

PROPOSAL: accept issue #277 and drop the Actor type

<jasnell> cwebber2: yes, likely

<cwebber2> -0

<jasnell> +0

+1

<melvster> +1

<cwebber2> my -0 should be non-blocking though.

<ben_thatmustbeme> 0, i do think it would make more sense to keep info about the grouping, though that could be just a matter of informative notes in the spec

<aaronpk> +1

tantek: I don't see blocking objections, so I'd like to declare this resolved

RESOLUTION: accept issue #277 and drop the Actor type

tantek: we have not hit zero issues, so we could do it at the next telcon

<rhiaro> http://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/social-web-protocols

Social Web Protocols

rhiaro: I have resolved a number of issues, and no FPWD-blocking issues have been raised

<Loqi> Sandro made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2016-03-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87345&oldid=87341

tantek: do you believe this has been sufficiently reviewed?

rhiaro: everyone who's active in the group has commented on issues, and it was required reading

sandro: is it worth having someone assigned to read it?

tantek: but you feel confident

eprodrom: this isn't a spec, so what will its lifecycle look like?

rhiaro: this could be an umbrella for multiple specs, published as a note

yes

sandro: we can document similarity between stacks

tantek: let's take this to a proposal

<KevinMarks> +1

PROPOSAL: take Social Web Protocols to First Public Working Draft

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<tsyesika> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<sandro> +1

<cwebber2> 0

+0

<cwebber2> for a specific reason

<melvster> 0

<cwebber2> I sent a large amount of feedback to rhiaro which has not been addressed

<cwebber2> but

<cwebber2> I don't know if that warrants holdin git off

<cwebber2> because

<cwebber2> I don't know enough about this process

tantek: FPWD doesn't have to reflect consensus
... It tells the public that we are working on this, possibly for rec track

<cwebber2> tantek, thanks for that indication, okay, in that case, I am +1

tantek: starts the clock on declaring exclusions in terms of IP

<melvster> O_o

RESOLUTION: take Social Web Protocols to First Public Working Draft

tantek: let's timebox next items to 5 min
... all edits have been made per jasnell

<sandro> yes, i agree decision was made at f2f.

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

RESOLUTION: push new WD of AS2

+1

WebMention

<aaronpk> http://webmention.net/draft/

I just dropped off the call, can someone scribe please?

<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme

<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-15]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87346&oldid=87338

aaronpk: there were no new issues on github over hte past week when we requested blocked issues, i have been incorporating feedback and latest version is available and was converted to respec
... link in irc

tantek: do you believe the spec has received sufficient review to take it to FPWD?

aaronpk: yes, i do believe a number have people have read it over and contributed their thoughts

PROPOSAL: take webmention to FPWD

<sandro> +1

<melvster> -0 a 5 minute window is not quite enough time provide accurate feedback, will send feedback to list ... non blocking

<cwebber2> +1

<rhiaro> +1

ben_thatmustbeme: +1

<eprodrom> +0

<KevinMarks> +1

<jasnell> +0

<melvster> PS webmention.net was also down for some of today

tantek: as background we did request anyone provide feedback at F2F over this time, so it has been public

<eprodrom> scribe: eprodrom

scribenick eprodrom

<scribe> scribenick: eprodrom

tantek: recognize that there was time for feedback

RESOLUTION: take webmention to FPWD

ActivityPump

cwebber: tsyesika and I had a significant meeting in private to address difficult issues in AP
... I will be filing issues along those points, thoughts on how to clean up rough edges for implementers
... have commented on issues, but haven't put FPWD on the agenda this week
... to my knowledge, no one has raised a blocker on AP
... happy to delay until next call

tantek: we didn't ask for FPWD-blocker issues

cwebber: can I ask now?

PROPOSED: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump by 5 Jan 2016

<cwebber2> actually, can we delay till Jan 12

<cwebber2> I will be on a train :)

<cwebber2> well

sandro: we mentioned at F2F to keep both AP and micropub in sync

<cwebber2> I could do jan 5 but I think jan 12 would be easier

PROPOSED: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump by 12 Jan 2016

<aaronpk> I would be okay with Jan 12 for micropub too.

<aaronpk> still need time to work on webmention fpwd :-)

<cwebber2> yes, I'm okay with it

<cwebber2> sounds great

+1

<tsyesika> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<cwebber2> (should we get an update to the proposed?)

<cwebber2> for the webmention part too

<tsyesika> +1

PROPOSED: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump and micropub by 12 Jan 2016

<rhiaro> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<tsyesika> +1

<KevinMarks> +1

+1

<aaronpk> +1

<melvster> 0

<sandro> +1

RESOLUTION: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump and micropub by 12 Jan 2016

<sandro> tantek: just that one resolution

tantek: previous resolution was incorrect
... Postponing post-type detection until next call
... additional issues?

+1

And a very good year!

<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-15]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87347&oldid=87346

<~~~

tantek: enjoy your holidays

<sandro> happy december, everyone!

tantek: next meeting 1/5, Arnaud to chair

trackbot, end meeting

<ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom++

<Loqi> eprodrom has 28 karma

<tantek> eprodrom++

<Loqi> eprodrom has 29 karma

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approve minutes of 2015-12-08
  2. RSVP or indicate problems with F2F date by Jan 5
  3. Skipping telcons on 12/22 and 12/29, next telcon on 5 Jan 2016
  4. close issue 269 unchanged
  5. accept issue #277 and drop the Actor type
  6. take Social Web Protocols to First Public Working Draft
  7. push new WD of AS2
  8. take webmention to FPWD
  9. Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump and micropub by 12 Jan 2016
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/12/15 19:01:02 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/exclusioins/exclusions/
Succeeded: s/RESOLVED: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump by 12 Jan 2016//
Found Scribe: eprodrom
Inferring ScribeNick: eprodrom
Found ScribeNick: ben_thatmustbeme
Found Scribe: eprodrom
Found ScribeNick: eprodrom
ScribeNicks: eprodrom, ben_thatmustbeme
Default Present: Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young, bengo, ben_thatmust, KevinMarks_
Present: Arnaud csarven rhiaro aaronpk shanehudson sandro elf-pavlik kevinmarks wilkie eprodrom jasnell ben_thatmustbeme cwebber tantek hhalpin james tsyesika shepazu

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 15 Dec 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/15-social-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]