IRC log of social on 2016-05-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
16:59:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:59:14 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:59:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
16:59:16 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:59:16 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
16:59:17 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:59:17 [trackbot]
Date: 24 May 2016
16:59:36 [annbass]
having probs getting webex going
17:00:00 [KevinMarks]
17:00:10 [KevinMarks]
I dialed in, but silence
17:00:25 [Arnaud]
17:00:25 [sandro]
trackbot, start meeting
17:00:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:00:28 [sandro]
17:00:29 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:00:29 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:00:30 [tantek]
17:00:30 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:00:30 [trackbot]
Date: 24 May 2016
17:00:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:00:58 [sandro]
KevinMarks, we're on the call....
17:01:03 [KevinMarks]
I think i was first
17:01:11 [KevinMarks]
17:03:02 [aaronpk]
17:03:25 [cwebber2]
dialing in
17:03:35 [annbass]
17:03:39 [rhiaro]
17:04:01 [paul_jeong]
present +
17:04:19 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
17:04:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i can scribe
17:04:36 [cwebber2]
17:04:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
17:04:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Chair: Arnaud
17:05:03 [Arnaud]
Approval of Minutes of 2016-05-17
17:05:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: approval of last weeks minutes
17:05:16 [cwebber2]
looks good
17:05:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: any objections to approving those minutes?
17:05:21 [cwebber2]
+1, approve 'em
17:05:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: hearing no objections, i'll declare them approved
17:05:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: update on F2F
17:06:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: we are two weeks away. again, please go to the wiki page and indicate your attendance, even if its regrets, or remote participation
17:06:22 [annbass]
I'm so bummed to not be able to go; ditto for IndieWebCamp
17:06:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... there aren't too many listed, but the chairs had a meeting and agreed that we had enough key members there
17:07:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we have updated a list of topics, but if there is anything else people wish to add, add proposals and the chairs will try to accomidate
17:07:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... any immediate comments, questions, etc on the meeting?
17:07:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: nothing new on our end, we are all set. I added a bunch of information to the wiki page, directions, food, etc
17:08:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: if there are no other questions, we can move on.
17:08:24 [rhiaro]
17:08:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... there is a question of when the next telcon will be, next weekend is memorial day meeting
17:08:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... when do we meet next
17:08:53 [Arnaud]
ack rhiaro
17:08:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: I'd like to meet next week so we can hopefully get AS2 to CR
17:09:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: I wanted to ask to meet next week, so i can hopefully get a new WD of SWP
17:09:36 [lloyd]
lloyd has joined #social
17:09:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: hearing that i am proposing to keep the normal schedule next week. Any problem with that?
17:09:50 [eprodrom]
17:09:58 [annbass]
17:10:05 [KevinMarks]
17:10:09 [rhiaro]
17:10:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: Arnaud, would you consider that if for some reason, those both fall through, we don't bother. So i'd say +1 to telcon if one of those is ready to ask the group to publish
17:10:23 [KevinMarks]
deciding when? Monday?
17:10:28 [KevinMarks]
17:10:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: so you are specifically interested in not having the call next week?
17:10:49 [rhiaro]
I'm definitely going to ask about SWP next week
17:10:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: no, its a matter of being able to make other plans or not
17:10:55 [rhiaro]
Draft will be ready by end of day tomorrow
17:11:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... if we are going to have these drafts ask to be published, hopefully those drafts will be ready a few days before
17:11:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... maybe that they have publish ready drafts have them ready by friday?
17:11:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: and then people review them on memorial day weekend?
17:11:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: you have a better use for a holiday ? :P
17:12:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: I don't want to do a telcon just to rubber stamp
17:12:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... its fine to do a telcon to publish, but to agree to publish, people have to have time to review
17:13:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: we will have the telcon ready next week, per the regular schedule, but if the editors expect to be able to publish, they be ready by friday
17:13:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: and then there is the one after the meeing too
17:13:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: i think we can decide that at the F2F
17:14:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: Webmention CR update
17:14:28 [tantek]
17:14:30 [Loqi]
@w3c :: Webmention is a W3C Candidate Recommendation (Call for Implementation)
17:14:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: Webmention has been published as a CR
17:14:34 [annbass]
hubba hubba!
17:14:34 [tantek]
17:14:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
multiple: congratulations
17:14:54 [tantek]
congrats all!
17:14:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: this happend just yesterday?
17:15:24 [KevinMarks]
we did use cases and requirements, I remember
17:15:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: the transition meeting was fairly uneventful, but for an awkward moment of us not having use-cases and requirements
17:15:42 [rhiaro]
sandro: I can put that in SWP too
17:15:52 [rhiaro]
or, links to existing articles about the comparisons
17:16:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... I also got some requests from people asking for notes about how it relates to trackback/pingback
17:16:26 [KevinMarks]
SWAT0 has been satisifed with webmention, which is a use case we brought in
17:16:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: for those new to w3c process, we now look for implementation reports, and w3c wide review.. the key is to meet exit criteria
17:16:42 [tantek]
FYI re: webmention over trackback/pingback:
17:16:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: now is the time to drum up publicity for people who might be interested in trying it out
17:17:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: we want to advertise it as much as possible and get them to provide implementation reports
17:17:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: and feedback too
17:17:21 [KevinMarks]
see and
17:17:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... thats part of the goal of CR, get feedback from others trying to implement it. A good spec, they should be able to implement it without talking to us, and if they can't, we should know that
17:18:09 [KevinMarks] does that
17:18:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: here's a dogfoody idea, do we have a webmentionable page about webmention that people can webmention to?
17:18:28 [rhiaro]
17:18:30 [annbass]
17:18:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: the validator does that but doesn't hold it permanently
17:18:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think that would be useful
17:18:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i can make a page for that
17:19:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: KevinMarks pointed out that we did have the use-case of swat0 and webmention does help implement SWAT0
17:19:20 [KevinMarks]
could we add a wm header to the spec?, or mention-tech would all work
17:19:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: just like we should have informative text about pingback, etc. We could have something about swat0
17:19:59 [KevinMarks]
we have done annotations with wm and fragmentions
17:20:09 [aaronpk]
KevinMarks: it's already there :-)
17:20:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i also got feedback from shepazu about including a different use-case
17:20:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: if issues come up in CR that cause changes that would effect compliance, we would have to issue a new CR first
17:21:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... in my experience its quite common, but after that point you already have multiple implementations and probably already meet the exit criteria
17:21:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: thats my experience too, my understanding is we would still need to meet them minimum CR time (4 weeks?)
17:22:10 [tantek]
I also pointed out that the implementation reports can be expected to provide additional use-cases as well (per feedback about including more/different use-cases)
17:22:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: one other procedural thing that came up, we saw internationalization review, but there are others which we don't have in our charter
17:22:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... usually you do that before CR
17:22:36 [annbass]
important liaison!
17:22:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: update on AS2.0
17:23:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: one more thing to request on webmention, to exit CR, we want a complete test suite, we entered CR with a partial test suite, and thats a critical piece to complete
17:23:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i wanted to give aaronpk a chance to respond before we move on
17:24:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: the implementation report lists all the things to test, and i plan to add them to, but there are a few things that would have to be done manually by people.
17:24:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do you have a rough idea of when it would be ready?
17:24:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: no, i can't say anything to that right now
17:25:05 [aaronpk]
17:25:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... my hope with the stuff that i wrote up, is to help you know what it is you need to look for in receiving, if you go through that, you have to self review.
17:25:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... some of those i will be able to write tests for, some I won't
17:26:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: as long as we can document what features we have claimed implementations for but don't necessarily have tests for
17:26:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... if we have features that we cannot have tests for, we should be clear about what that list is
17:27:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... applies to all of our specs obviously
17:27:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: update on AS2.0
17:27:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: Evan, we were expecting a WD, please tell us whats up?
17:28:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i just shared links for the editor's draft, but the publish of the WD is taking some time to get going, it should be up in the next 24h, if thats the case, i'll update the group via email. We don't have a WD, we probably can't discuss taking it to CR
17:29:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: to clarify, is the editor's draft ready for publication? is it just a matter of publishing to the TR space?
17:29:20 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
17:29:30 [eprodrom]
17:29:36 [eprodrom]
17:29:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: yes, everyone can view it in the editor's draft now. there will be minor errors or things i have to clean up, but the content will be what will go up on WD
17:30:04 [Arnaud]
17:30:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: the expecation is that will happen before friday, and hopefully next week we can have a vote on requesting to take it to CR
17:30:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: any question or comments?
17:30:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Topic: request for review of JF2
17:31:01 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:31:02 [tantek]
17:31:04 [KevinMarks]
ben: I finally have time to do updates on jf2 and i would like to share them wiht the group
17:31:13 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: Can people look over jf2 and give me some feedback; I made some updates
17:31:13 [Arnaud]
17:31:25 [KevinMarks]
ben: I want to get feedback from the group
17:31:28 [tantek]
summary of changes since we last talked about it?
17:31:53 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: all the w3c drafts should be in the w3c space?
17:31:58 [rhiaro]
sandro: no, james resisted that with as2
17:32:10 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: as far as I know w3c is deploying a bunch of tools to archive, and none of this happen sif it's not in w3c space
17:32:22 [rhiaro]
sandro: this is true, it's not clear that any of these tools are useful yet, trying to figure out how to deploy the archiving thing
17:32:31 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: none are, are they?
17:32:37 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: that doesn't mean it's okay
17:32:49 [rhiaro]
tantek: last time we talked about this we made a deliberate decision to have editors keep the specs in their repos, in SF
17:33:01 [rhiaro]
sandro: we might want to reconsider if there's a problem, I'll try to find out
17:33:03 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: thanks
17:33:29 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: I don't think many people have read it yet, it's my first draft, so before I ask I'd like input
17:33:40 [rhiaro]
tantek: when do you think you'll ask for that
17:34:05 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: barring any issues, it's been very useful for us (aaronpk and I) already, it simplifies things for working with individual objects coming out of microformats
17:34:16 [rhiaro]
... could ask any time, just want wg review first
17:34:20 [rhiaro]
tantek: next week, face to face?
17:34:25 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: next week, sure
17:34:56 [rhiaro]
scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
17:35:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: social web protocols
17:35:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i just updated the mentioning section, i'm going to continue to update the other sections. It was more bullet points before, but now its more prose
17:36:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... I'm hoping to have it up in a couple days and certainly by friday
17:36:10 [rhiaro]
17:36:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i also added text on how it relates to other specs
17:36:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: any other questions?
17:36:33 [cwebber2]
17:36:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: tracking of other document status
17:36:35 [cwebber2]
17:36:44 [tantek]
17:36:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: any other updates anyone wants to give?
17:36:46 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber
17:37:16 [cwebber2]
17:37:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: I guess its a big one , but we discussed releasing a new WD of activitypub. I incorporated a few updates, but I don't think anybody raised any other issues to it
17:37:39 [tantek]
17:37:40 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
17:38:03 [cwebber2]
17:38:18 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber
17:38:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: ben roberts has been helping me get a github version of the post type discovery up and hopefully i'll have it ready by the F2F
17:38:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: i just wanted to make sure that no one raising any issues on the call is it OK for me to publish an updated WD
17:39:11 [aaronpk]
17:39:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: I guess what i'm asking for is an explicity vote
17:39:22 [cwebber2]
17:39:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: is there a list of changes?
17:39:38 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: pasted in chat
17:39:39 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Publish the latest ActivityPub editor's draft
17:39:55 [tantek]
17:39:56 [sandro]
17:39:57 [cwebber2]
17:40:01 [rhiaro]
17:40:03 [annbass]
17:40:05 [KevinMarks]
17:40:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:40:10 [eprodrom]
17:40:24 [aaronpk]
17:40:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: anyone else?
17:40:32 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Publish the latest ActivityPub editor's draft
17:40:33 [tantek]
minor editorial nit: s/ActivityStreams Working Group/Social Web Working Group
17:40:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: any other good news?
17:41:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: now that you have a WD ready to publish, hows the implementation going?
17:41:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: after the F2F i plan on doing a complete and independant implementation and that will be my complete focus between this and the next F2F
17:42:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: anyone else?
17:42:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... Any other business people would like to bring up?
17:42:22 [cwebber2]
17:42:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... thank you all
17:42:28 [tantek]
ben_thatmustbeme++ thanks for scribing!
17:42:29 [cwebber2]
later, *
17:42:30 [Loqi]
ben_thatmustbeme has 145 karma
17:42:38 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: we'll have a meeting next week,
17:42:40 [annbass]
thanks Arnaud and Ben / Amy
17:42:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... see you next week
17:42:48 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
17:42:48 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:42:48 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been present, Arnaud, sandro, tantek, ben_thatmustbeme, aaronpk, annbass, rhiaro, cwebber
17:42:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:42:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:42:57 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:42:57 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items