17:01:23 RRSAgent has joined #social 17:01:23 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-social-irc 17:01:25 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:01:25 Zakim has joined #social 17:01:27 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:01:27 ok, trackbot 17:01:28 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:01:28 Date: 23 August 2016 17:01:41 no, iOS, i don't want to update my phone right before i call in to this meeting 17:01:43 Can anyone scribe? 17:01:46 I can scribe 17:01:51 present+ 17:01:54 present+ 17:01:57 present+ 17:02:11 present+ 17:02:15 present+ 17:02:20 scribenick: wilkie 17:02:32 chair: eprodrom 17:02:44 present+ 17:03:52 akim, who's here? 17:03:57 Zakim, who's here? 17:03:57 Present: ben_thatmustbeme, wilkie, eprodrom, cwebber, rhiaro, csarven 17:03:59 On IRC I see RRSAgent, eprodrom, cwebber2, jasnell_, KevinMarks, tantek, Arnaud, raucao, wilkie, jet, tsyesika, ElijahLynn, csarven, Loqi, rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, rrika, aaronpk, 17:03:59 ... dwhly, bitbear, strugee, bigbluehat, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot 17:04:47 present+ 17:05:02 badoop 17:05:04 present+ 17:05:15 Can anyone hear my voice? 17:05:21 not yet, no 17:05:26 nope 17:05:28 nope 17:05:29 nope 17:05:30 Nope, eprodrom 17:05:34 OK, that explains a lot 17:05:36 :) 17:05:38 we can hear each other but not you 17:05:41 Give me 30 seconds to call back in 17:05:42 I was thinking it was a pretty quiet start! 17:06:37 yes 17:06:39 eprodrom: can you hear me now? 17:06:46 :) 17:06:50 :D 17:07:01 eprodrom: sorry about that. thanks for your patience. probably a good time to get started 17:07:11 eprodrom: I will be chairing today because Arnaud is unavailable 17:07:22 eprodrom: let's start out with approving the minutes for the previous meeting 17:07:27 TOPIC: Approval of Minutes 17:07:30 PROPOSED Accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-02-minutes as minutes for 20016-08-02 meeting 17:07:33 +1 17:07:35 +1 17:07:57 +1 17:07:57 +1 17:08:08 +1 17:08:18 you might need a colon? how does "proposed" work 17:08:44 RESOLVED: Accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-02-minutes as minutes for 20016-08-02 meeting 17:08:51 +1 17:09:02 eprodrom: barring anything else we have resolved on that 17:09:06 eprodrom: moving on to our next topic 17:09:14 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-22#Registration 17:09:15 Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7) 17:09:20 eprodrom: probably an important thing but not listed is to cover registration for TPAC 17:09:32 eprodrom: we are having a meeting at TPAC september 21st to 23rd 17:09:51 eprodrom: if you haven't registered yet, please do. if you believe you will not be going also let us now. tentively or not. 17:10:02 eprodrom++ for chairing 17:10:02 eprodrom has 41 karma (40 in this channel) 17:10:05 eprodrom: great. so. we don't have any other administrative issues to discuss. 17:10:11 eprodrom: I'd like to move on to our discussion items. 17:10:38 re: f2f is anyone else coming? 17:10:40 eprodrom: the first is an update on activity pub and LDN and have rhiaro start us off 17:10:54 rhiaro: last week I went to madison and worked on activity pub and made lots of progress. 17:11:17 rhiaro: it might be better to have cwebber2 talk about those changes because we didn't do much to LDN but rather catch activitypub up to LDN 17:11:33 cwebber2: sounds good. first, rhiaro was an immense help. 17:11:51 cwebber2: the first is to clarify client to client and client to server stuff. although some of this isn't in the document. 17:12:07 cwebber2: first, there is a list of side effects of using various activities in activity streams. 17:12:15 I'll add a specific item about f2f at the end of the agenda and try to get on the phone 17:12:24 cwebber2: and a separate section showing targetting and delivery and side effects of activities. 17:12:34 cwebber2: these are cleaning separated which we've been talking about for some time 17:12:52 cwebber2: one thing we discuss is having two separate documents and saying this makes sense from the payload and protocols 17:13:27 cwebber2: but we have seen that the differences is a specialization of some of the LDN specifications 17:13:43 cwebber2: clarifying and using much of the LDN stuff has made the sections clearer and more concise 17:14:14 cwebber2: since we have linked data notifications referenced cleanly in activitypub and sections for client-client and client-server... we will keep it as one document 17:14:26 cwebber2: rhiaro and I agree about this and tsyesika also seems to agree 17:14:55 cwebber2: one concern is... "I want to publish this note to my followers" and somebody replies to you, how does this reply get out to your followers? 17:15:18 cwebber2: pump.io has encountered this issue too. we did a demo implementation and drew things out on paper and we think we've come up with a method and put that in the spec 17:15:38 Bravo 17:15:42 cwebber2: that if somebody does write a reply you can forward it under some conditions 17:16:01 cwebber2: there are changes to make to the WD and I can make those and go toward a new working draft and feel confident about the state of the document 17:16:05 q? 17:16:26 eprodrom: rhiaro, you were saying there aren't major changes to LDN at this point? 17:16:47 rhiaro: right. there are editorial changes and we should still publish a new LDN WD as well to make sure things are in sync. 17:16:48 Zakim, who's on the call? 17:16:48 Present: ben_thatmustbeme, wilkie, eprodrom, cwebber, rhiaro, csarven, aaronpk, sandro 17:17:03 rhiaro: lately I've changed social web protocols to catch things up and so we need to publish a new version of that too 17:17:41 eprodrom: great. this might open a can of worms; we discussed last meeting... this is a social web protocols / ldn question, how do we handle having ldn and aligning it with others 17:17:48 rhiaro: right, that's next on my things to attack 17:17:49 present+ 17:17:50 eprodrom: ah, sorry, ok 17:18:01 q? 17:18:10 rhiaro: I added it to the social web protocols and hopefully I can talk to julien about that 17:18:30 eprodrom: cwebber2, are we ready for a next version then? 17:18:32 changelog++ 17:18:32 changelog has 2 karma (1 in this channel) 17:18:38 cwebber2: I think so I just have to add one thing 17:19:13 eprodrom: my next question is: should we go to working draft or wait until the group can review or just push the next version? I'm also fine with review on the WD. 17:19:36 rhiaro: I was thinking we would publish the new WD today and then have it reviewed since we have some time off 17:19:51 PROPOSED: publish current editor's draft of ActivityPub plus changelog as new working draft 17:19:54 cwebber2: I agree with that because we want to get to CR either before or by TPAC and this would help us move along 17:20:04 is there a link to the changelog? 17:20:14 eprodrom: before we start +1'ing it, cwebber2 and rhiaro, does this reflect what you want to do next? 17:20:17 cwebber2: yep 17:20:18 rhiaro: yep 17:20:31 +1 17:20:32 we really should provide a link to a changelog for anything we want to propose publishing 17:20:32 +1 17:20:36 eprodrom: changelog right now? 17:20:40 +1 17:20:40 +1 17:20:41 +1 17:20:55 +1 17:21:09 0, don't really like publishing without a review or some changelog, but i will abstain in the interest of saving time 17:21:16 0, similarly 17:21:18 I could write a fast changelog that'll be done before meeting end if necessary 17:21:19 traffic noises 17:21:32 would that help? 17:21:44 (cwebber2 yes please!) 17:22:07 any document that is rec track should have a changelog with summaries 17:22:11 eprodrom: cwebber2, don't do the changelog during the call if you can help it, but some have other opinions on that 17:22:18 RESOLVED: publish current editor's draft of ActivityPub plus changelog as new working draft 17:22:19 eprodrom: I'm going to mark this as resolved and... great 17:22:34 I believe AS2, Micropub, Webmention have all done a good job of providing changelogs for every published draft and that's been very helpful 17:22:45 ACK 17:22:48 eprodrom: in all aspects, next time we have proposals coming up from editors moving to WD that you bring a changelog with you. either something you can link or drop into the channel. 17:22:52 eprodrom: great 17:22:53 (if anyone would like examples of existing changelogs in the group) 17:23:02 eprodrom: I'd like to move on to the next topic 17:23:03 cwebber2: reading scrollback your notification issue sounds like salmentions 17:23:07 TOPIC: Proposal: publish new WD of SWP 17:23:13 TOPIC: publish new WD of SWP 17:23:29 https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/commits/gh-pages 17:23:48 rhiaro: this morning I added PuSH and refactored a section. the link of the git log I dropped in the channel should give you an idea of the changes. 17:23:53 https://indieweb.org/salmentions 17:24:01 rhiaro: I'd like to propose those changes. 17:24:07 q? 17:24:21 eprodrom: do we have questions on Social Web Protocols? 17:24:22 (since SWP is not rec-track, having an in-draft changelog is not as important) 17:24:46 eprodrom: ok. great. I'd like to ask... rhiaro would you mind adding a changelog to this document? 17:24:49 rhiaro: can you provide a link to the draft you have staged to publish? 17:24:49 rhiaro: no problem 17:24:53 I mentioned Social Web Protocols on TWiG this week :D 17:24:55 tantek, is SWPO non-rec-track? 17:25:02 eprodrom: I'd like to propose publishing this editors draft as a new working draft 17:25:03 PROPOSED: publish https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols + Changelog as new working draft for Social Web Protocols 17:25:07 s/SWPO/SWP 17:25:20 ben_thatmustbeme: yes that's my understanding since it non-normatively compares / relates *other* specs 17:25:22 eprodrom: does that look right, rhiaro? 17:25:24 rhiaro: yeah, looks right 17:25:26 eprodrom: great 17:25:28 +1 17:25:29 +1 17:25:29 +1 17:25:32 +1 17:25:33 eprodrom: please vote 17:25:33 +1 17:25:34 +1 17:25:40 +1 17:25:40 +1 17:26:21 eprodrom: I'll give some time to look it over 17:26:44 rhiaro: just to add this has a less important time table but it is important that people not see it too out of date 17:26:50 oops, realized I wasn't muted 17:26:54 sorry for typing noises 17:26:56 +0 again as before 17:27:00 eprodrom: I think it is important to keep this up to date and appreciate that you took the time to do that 17:27:07 but it is important to get SWP changes out 17:27:21 eprodrom: tantek? 17:27:28 eprodrom: I don't want to rush you. I know you are reading it now. 17:27:31 rhiaro typo: "ontent is deleted" 17:27:43 will fix :) 17:27:45 (start of 3.2) 17:28:16 eprodrom: I need all the votes in 17:28:26 +1 great update rhiaro. Thank you. 17:28:29 RESOLVED: publish https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols + Changelog as new working draft for Social Web Protocols 17:28:52 eprodrom: alright. great. I'm going to mark this as resolved. rhiaro, if you won't mind to fix that typo even if it isn't part of the resolution. 17:29:09 eprodrom: next agenda item is to publish a new working draft of LDN 17:29:15 TOPIC: Publish New Working Draft of LDN 17:29:22 eprodrom: rhiaro, can you tell us all what's going on with LDN 17:29:29 https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/#change-log 17:29:30 rhiaro: nothing substantive except some clarifications 17:29:46 rhiaro: it does have a changelog here but it is just editorial stuff but thought it doesn't hurt to keep things up-to-date 17:29:49 eprodrom: great 17:29:49 changelog++ 17:29:50 changelog has 3 karma (2 in this channel) 17:29:51 "editorial" 17:29:55 that's not very descriptive :) 17:30:00 eprodrom: the document doesn't have a changelog? 17:30:08 rhiaro: I linked to the document that has a changelog 17:30:16 eprodrom: ah, I see, great 17:30:36 eprodrom: maybe in the future, especially since you did say there are explanatory differences, to explain what those differences are 17:30:43 +1 on that 17:30:56 eprodrom: everybody please mute if you aren't me thank you 17:31:12 This is the version to publish https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/#change-log 17:31:12 eprodrom: the one on linkedresearch.org is the editor's draft? I believe? 17:31:18 ED ready to be WD 17:31:34 PROPOSED: publish https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/ + detailed changelog as new working draft of LDN 17:31:37 eprodrom: great. so I am going to propose publishing this as a new working draft of LDN 17:31:53 Looks good 17:31:55 this is a second WD right? we already did a FPWD? 17:32:02 eprodrom: rhiaro, does that make sense to you? 17:32:06 yep 17:32:09 eprodrom: and yeah, this is the second WD I believe 17:32:18 +1 17:32:21 +1 17:32:25 +1 17:32:30 +1 17:32:31 +1 17:32:32 +1 17:32:33 eprodrom: (upon seeing rhiaro's affirmative on IRC) ok. great. if this makes sense, let's vote. 17:32:36 +1 17:32:43 +1 17:32:48 +1 17:33:30 eprodrom: everyone is more willing to make progress when we've had 2 weeks off. 17:33:34 eprodrom: and yes, next week we have off 17:33:37 RESOLVED: publish https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/ + detailed changelog as new working draft of LDN 17:33:46 eprodrom: if you are to vote please do so. in this case I will mark it resolved. 17:33:54 eprodrom: there is a new working draft. great. 17:34:06 eprodrom: let's move on to our next item which is about AS2 17:34:26 eprodrom: probably easier to have tantek chair while we go over the next item since it makes sense for me to address what is going on with AS2 17:34:33 tantek is not on the phone 17:34:37 TOPIC: ActivityStreams 2.0 17:34:47 I can't chair, I'm speaking in person at the AB meeting :/ 17:34:48 eprodrom: ah. ok. I'll chair myself and try to push through this. 17:35:04 eprodrom: so. the state of AS2, a brief recap, on AS2. We had our CR meeting. 17:35:10 so that eprodrom can be free to discuss AS2 as editor 17:35:17 eprodrom: after our meeting we had some issues brought up by i18n group. 17:35:37 eprodrom: we decided to pull out of CR to better address these concerns and we've been addressing them for the last few weeks. 17:35:55 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues 17:36:00 eprodrom: as of today, jasnell_ did a few PRs to resolve these existing issues and so, depending on your measurement, we might be ready to go to CR right now 17:36:08 eprodrom: however we have new issues that are currently on our list 17:36:22 eprodrom: a couple of those are editorial 17:36:44 eprodrom: those will probably not be a problem but there are at least 1 or 2 normative changes 17:37:25 eprodrom: where I am, as an editor, wondering is if we need to get to 0 issues to reach CR, or is it better to go to CR with the document as we've agreed and resolve these in the next months 17:37:37 vote going to CR 17:37:41 *I vote 17:37:42 eprodrom: that's where we are at the moment. we are in an administrative point. as an editor, I want to move to CR and resolve as we go along 17:37:50 q+ 17:38:00 eprodrom: ben? 17:38:04 ack ben_thatmustbeme 17:38:12 is sandro on the phone? 17:38:21 we really need other people who were on the AS2 CR transition call to contribute to this discussion (apologies that I cannot) 17:38:22 ben_thatmustbeme: I was wondering if we go to CR and have normative changes, we have to redo CR. what does that entail 17:38:56 sandro: I am on the phone. the second version of CR involves us being willing to do it and its not a lot of work but it has about a 3 week turn-around so it is better to avoid it if you can 17:39:22 in my experience any "real" / practical spec has at least 2 CRs 17:39:24 He's done it, the i18n issues are resolved in the current ED 17:39:38 sandro: my understanding, though, is that we had a meeting (you weren't on this meeting) and we were waiting for these issues and jasnell_ said he would fix them and then said he would fix them today and we had resolved these 17:39:42 that is, implementers of the first CR nearly always find substantial issue that require normative changes 17:39:42 here is the thread https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/336 17:39:45 and thus a second CR 17:39:46 sandro: what is the status of these edits? anyone know? 17:39:54 and here is the new paragraph: http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/core/index.html#biditext 17:39:56 [James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0 17:40:07 eprodrom: yeah. jasnell_ has made a PR for changes to how we handle bi-directional text 17:40:35 eprodrom: basically, for those who aren't following this, we came down to a fundamental difference between using bidirectional markers at the unicode level and using bidirectional markup in the html level 17:41:07 eprodrom: there were strong resolution to not use the markup in certain fields and we can to a satisifactory compromise that doesn't require markup in the name field 17:41:14 what's the PR? 17:41:28 http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/core/#naturalLanguageValues 17:41:30 [James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0 17:41:30 could you link to the "satisfactory compromise" for ther ecord? 17:41:43 eprodrom: jasnell_ made those changes and they are in the editor's draft... let me make sure... yes. section 4.7... I can drop this 17:41:53 link to the *discussion* that resulted in the "satisfactory compromise" 17:41:55 eprodrom: ah, yeah, satisfactory compromise... let me see if I can link to that 17:42:02 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/pull/352 17:42:06 eprodrom: here is the pull request 17:42:24 eprodrom: that jasnell_ made 17:42:28 336 has the discussion https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/336 17:42:30 eprodrom: let me see if I can summarize 17:42:42 eprodrom: this is about using natural language and bidirectional text 17:42:49 eprodrom: this is a significant change 17:43:12 +1 that all sounds right 17:43:31 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues 17:43:37 sandro: sounds like we solved the bidirectional issues 17:43:42 eprodrom: yes 17:44:04 that BIDI makes sense given the tests we conducted. 17:44:04 is this the compromise? https://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Activity_Streams_direction_notes#Some_tentative_conclusions 17:44:12 eprodrom: we have 6 issues. one is easy to fix. one is normative and a change from a MAY to a SHOULD. 17:44:14 issue 336 is too long to be considered a "Summary" 17:44:20 shh trackbot 17:44:28 eprodrom: either than that... they seem to be resolved 17:44:46 sandro: sounds like there is nothing here that would need a second CR if we changed it? anything that would change implementations? 17:44:53 my understanding is that NO properties are added to AS2 as a result of this discussion right? 17:44:58 correct 17:44:59 eprodrom: could you confirm ^^^ ? 17:45:00 right 17:45:06 ok then I am +1 17:45:06 eprodrom: it doesn't seem like that a publisher or consumer would be significantly different between this MAY or SHOULD 17:45:15 eprodrom: it is just a shift of emphasis, I'd think 17:45:22 sandro: we don't know what we want to do with this one at this point? 17:45:31 how long would it take to figure out the may or should? 17:45:32 eprodrom: I can't make that call right now 17:45:36 q+ 17:45:43 eprodrom: I'd make it a SHOULD but jasnell_ probably has different ideas about it 17:45:45 ack rhiaro 17:45:46 eprodrom: rhiaro? 17:45:57 rhiaro: realistically we would have a second CR on this 17:45:58 sandro: why? 17:46:18 rhiaro: seems like we will get feedback from implementers, unless you don't think so. seems like it would probably happen 17:46:23 sandro: I just want to avoid extra work 17:46:24 rhiaro: ok 17:46:44 are we willing to write tests for this detail? 17:46:52 sandro: I feel like MAY vs SHOULD won't hurt but the safest thing we could do is make it at-risk 17:46:55 or get i18n to write tests? 17:47:00 eprodrom: so put it as SHOULD and say "at-risk" 17:47:01 that's one way to address may/should 17:47:14 sandro: or leave it as MAY and say "at-risk" and it may change to a SHOULD 17:47:24 sandro: whatever way we think it is likely to go and just put it 'at-risk' 17:47:33 eprodrom: I like marking it 'at-risk' and publishing as-is 17:47:36 sandro: sounds good 17:47:38 can we actually make it at-risk when i18n says it's a requirement? 17:47:44 sandro: and the other 5 issues don't seem like normative changes? 17:47:57 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/351 17:47:58 the https one? 17:48:12 I'm worried that we drop it, then i18n objects when we try to go CR->PR 17:48:26 isn't w3c ns taking care of that? 17:48:31 it officially switched to https on 1 Aug I believe 17:48:36 ..sandro? 17:48:39 q? 17:48:47 eprodrom: one is normative but... it is whether we support the HTTP content or what makes most sense 17:48:52 eprodrom: rhiaro, can you say this outloud? 17:49:22 sandro: I don't think I've thought about this for context uris, but for namespace URIs this doesn't change 17:49:35 rhiaro: right, but this changes javascript implementations... this is an implementation problem 17:49:37 which may is becoming a should? 17:49:51 sandro: it does seem possible that browsers will be a pain in this way 17:49:53 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/354 17:50:13 eprodrom: my feeling is HTTPS makes most sense. our implementor base is small and this is the time to do it 17:50:30 eprodrom: the only down-side is that there are some older libraries that don't support HTTPS but I think they are a smaller and smaller number 17:50:38 eprodrom: and it makes sense to push it to HTTPS everywhere 17:50:45 sandro: let's make this at-risk too 17:50:55 sandro: there are complexities here that I didn't think were there at first 17:51:05 I hope there is alignment with https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/347 17:51:13 eprodrom: let's make it HTTPS in the editor's draft and we'll mark it 'at-risk' that we might also support just HTTP 17:51:17 ^ eprodrom 17:51:25 sandro: yeah. the main reason to not put HTTPS there is... 17:51:31 The contents of @context stays as HTTP 17:51:51 It is the reference to context in HTTP is a problem if on HTTPS - client side / browser issue 17:52:01 Hope for the best and have implementations fix their stuff?? 17:52:12 sandro: the URIs might need some place to mark that it is HTTPS or not otherwise it will pull it from the base url 17:52:34 sandro: I never thought about the mixed-content warnings so I don't know what the right thing to do is 17:52:41 ok with eprodrom 's suggestion with AT RISK 17:52:41 sandro: let's say 'at-risk' and figure it out. 17:52:44 And maybe having it called out in the CR doc will help with getting feedback 17:52:48 http://known.kevinmarks.com/2016/-inline-rtl-works-in-reverse-without-implementers-knowing 17:52:49 [Kevin Marks] ‮ inline RTL works in reverse without implementers knowing 17:52:49 #indieweb 17:52:52 eprodrom: we're ok with at-risk and then figure it out? 17:52:54 sandro: yep 17:52:56 eprodrom: ok. great. 17:53:26 eprodrom: sounds like I have two 'at-risk' notes to put in. and besides that looks like we are ready to go and I can have a version ready to have out thursday? 17:53:27 just reference with "//www.w3.org/..." and make it decide on its own :P 17:53:31 eprodrom: does that work time-wise? rhiaro? 17:53:34 rhiaro: yeah 17:53:47 rhiaro: if they say no for thursday we can do it next tuesday 17:53:52 eprodrom: ok! 17:54:07 sandro: let's get a new resolution on record 17:54:19 ben_thatmustbeme: I'll keep that in mind 17:54:48 q? 17:55:04 eprodrom: if anyone has a question about AS2 and what we are doing right now, this is a great time to ask 17:55:10 PROPOSED: Proceed to CR with both ActivityStreams documents, including the changes worked out with i18n and items marked At Risk in this meeting, as per Ralph's go-ahead from the transition meeting. 17:55:32 +1 17:55:33 +1 17:55:33 +1 17:55:34 +1 17:55:39 +1 17:55:41 +1 17:55:51 +1 17:56:00 +1 17:56:47 RESOLVED: Proceed to CR with both ActivityStreams documents, including the changes worked out with i18n and items marked At Risk in this meeting, as per Ralph's go-ahead from the transition meeting. 17:56:49 eprodrom: unless we have any objections, now is the time to do so 17:57:09 eprodrom: now we have something to point to in terms of resolutions. 17:57:09 cwebber2++ for speedy changelog! 17:57:09 cwebber2 has 70 karma 17:57:13 thanks rhiaro :) 17:57:15 eprodrom: we are now at the top of the hour 17:57:35 since I did a /me earlier, here's the changelog for log records https://w3c-social.github.io/activitypub/#changes-from-13-june-2016-to-present-version 17:57:42 eprodrom: aaronpk, are you good with pushing micropub for two weeks from now? or should we extend? 17:57:59 aaronpk: I'm ok with waiting two weeks and come up with a more concrete proposal 17:58:09 eprodrom: great. how long do you think it will take? we can extend 10 minutes 17:58:12 +1 on AS2 CR (sorry to be delayed, multitasking is hard) 17:58:13 aaronpk: it is fine. we can just wait 17:58:27 eprodrom: great. thank you very much. appreciate your flexibilty on that. 17:58:35 good call! 17:58:36 eprodrom: thank you everybody for your time. I believe that wraps it up for us. 17:58:38 productive :) 17:58:40 wilkie++ 17:58:40 wilkie has 33 karma 17:58:42 wilkie++ 17:58:42 wilkie has 34 karma 17:58:45 wilkie++ 17:58:45 wilkie has 35 karma 17:58:46 thanks all 17:58:46 eprodrom++ 17:58:47