16:59:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
16:59:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-social-irc
16:59:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:59:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
16:59:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:59:35 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
16:59:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:59:36 <trackbot> Date: 18 October 2016
16:59:49 <eprodrom> present+
16:59:56 <eprodrom> It's not clear to me who's chairing today
17:00:32 <aaronpk> present+
17:00:42 <aaronpk> what is not clear? it says tantek here https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-18
17:01:11 <rhiaro> present+
17:01:13 <csarven> present+
17:01:34 <wilkie> present+
17:02:10 <julien> julien has joined #social
17:02:13 <bengo> bengo has joined #social
17:02:40 <cwebber2> dialing in, 1 sec
17:03:03 <eprodrom> Can someone step forward to scribe?
17:03:10 <julien> can anyone share the dialin info?
17:03:25 <cwebber2> julien: I can PM
17:03:36 <wilkie> I can scribe
17:03:50 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+
17:03:51 <wilkie> scribenick: wilkie
17:03:55 <eprodrom> scribenick: wilkie
17:04:48 <cwebber2> present+
17:04:52 <julien> present+
17:05:14 <julien> Unfortunately I have only 30minutes today :/
17:05:28 <julien> thx
17:05:31 <rhiaro> Thanks :)
17:05:35 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
17:05:35 <csarven> ++
17:05:44 <bengo> present+
17:06:05 <eprodrom> tantek: will you be chairing today? I think you covered for me last week, so I was going to do it this week
17:06:37 <tantek> eprodrom: sorry yes - since I'm gone for 2 weeks in Dec
17:06:45 <tantek> present+
17:08:02 <wilkie> yep
17:08:16 <wilkie> also yep
17:08:19 <sandro> trackbot, start meeting
17:08:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:08:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:08:23 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
17:08:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:08:24 <trackbot> Date: 18 October 2016
17:08:25 <tantek> present+
17:08:27 <wilkie> present+
17:08:30 <wilkie> scribenick: wilkie
17:08:33 <sandro> present+
17:08:38 <eprodrom> present+
17:08:42 <cwebber2> present+
17:09:05 <rhiaro> Yep
17:09:07 <ben_thatmustbeme> yes
17:09:15 <wilkie> tantek: we have a list of things to review and it keeps getting longer. hopefully everyone had time to go through them
17:09:22 <ben_thatmustbeme> rhiaro++
17:09:22 <Loqi> rhiaro has 241 karma (130 in this channel)
17:09:26 <wilkie> tantek: everyone has gone through the minutes then?
17:09:45 <wilkie> tantek: let's do the Face-to-face minutes first since they are the earliest and fading in peoples memories as they get further in the past
17:09:54 <wilkie> tantek: I don't see anyone objecting to approving the minutes
17:10:03 <wilkie> TOPIC: Face-to-face minutes
17:10:10 <tantek> PROPOSED: Approve minutes for F2F7 both day 1 and 2 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-22-minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-23-minutes
17:10:13 <eprodrom> URLs++
17:10:13 <Loqi> urls has 4 karma (3 in this channel)
17:10:16 <rhiaro> +1
17:10:18 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:10:25 <eprodrom> +1
17:10:26 <wilkie> +1
17:10:27 <sandro> +1
17:10:30 <aaronpk> +1
17:10:31 <cwebber2> +1
17:10:47 <tantek> RESOLVED: Approve minutes for F2F7 both day 1 and 2 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-22-minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-23-minutes
17:10:47 <wilkie> tantek: let's declare that resolved then. those minutes are approved.
17:10:54 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
17:11:05 <wilkie> tantek: ok. how about the minutes from 2 weeks ago. are people prepared to look at that and approve those?
17:11:16 <tantek> PROPOSED: Approve minutes from telecon 2 weeks ago: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-04-minutes
17:11:18 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:11:26 <rhiaro> +1
17:11:28 <sandro> +1
17:11:28 <eprodrom> +1
17:11:29 <wilkie> +1
17:11:37 <aaronpk> +1
17:11:57 <wilkie> tantek: yeah, it has been a busy month.
17:11:57 <cwebber2> +1
17:11:59 <tantek> RESOLVED: Approve minutes from telecon 2 weeks ago: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-04-minutes
17:12:01 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #social
17:12:05 <julien> +!
17:12:06 <julien> +1
17:12:10 <wilkie> tantek: looks pretty good and that we got most of the people on the call on that. let's call that resolved.
17:12:19 <wilkie> tantek: and last week's minutes, which was a longer telecon than usual.
17:12:28 <tantek> PROPOSED: Approve minutes from last week's telecon: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-11-minutes
17:12:28 <wilkie> tantek: ah welcome julien!
17:12:43 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
17:12:44 <eprodrom> +1
17:12:56 <rhiaro> +1
17:13:01 <sandro> +1
17:13:13 <cwebber2> +1
17:13:15 <wilkie> +1
17:13:18 <eprodrom> reviewreviewreview
17:13:34 <julien> +1
17:13:41 <bengo> my fault
17:13:56 <tantek> RESOLVED: Approve minutes from last week's telecon: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-11-minutes
17:14:22 <wilkie> tantek: alright. first I should bring up our face-to-face meeting which is up in a month
17:14:26 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-11-17
17:14:27 <Loqi> Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting at MIT (F2F8)
17:14:44 <wilkie> tantek: please add yourself to the list of participants
17:14:54 <wilkie> tantek: this will be the last face to face of the year and possibly the last for the group
17:15:05 <wilkie> tantek: there is only me and ben and aaron right now
17:15:24 <wilkie> tantek: I re-ordered one item on the list. these are things that were left-over from last week.
17:15:49 <wilkie> tantek: I moved the pub-sub fpwd status to the top
17:16:02 <wilkie> sandro: so, if you haven't refreshed, I requests LDN to be moved up
17:16:04 <wilkie> tantek: ah, I see
17:16:12 <wilkie> sandro: because rhiaro is in japan
17:16:28 <wilkie> tantek: alright, rhiaro, would you let us know what is going on with the pubsub fpwd
17:16:47 <wilkie> rhiaro: of the last things is to send an email to the systems team to publish it and then it will be done
17:16:50 <wilkie> tantek: great news
17:16:54 <wilkie> rhiaro: pushing that out now
17:17:08 <julien> Thanks Amy for the precious help!
17:17:21 <wilkie> tantek: well that's a pretty big set of hurdles to get pubsub through in terms of process related and naming is probably the most challenging thing to get through
17:17:22 <rhiaro> and pubrules of course
17:17:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> julien++
17:17:24 <Loqi> julien has 2 karma (1 in this channel)
17:17:34 <eprodrom> julien++
17:17:34 <Loqi> julien has 3 karma (2 in this channel)
17:17:37 <wilkie> tantek: thank you julien for your time and patience and keeping pubsub alive all these years and I appreciate all the effort you've put in
17:17:38 <julien> rhiaro++
17:17:38 <Loqi> rhiaro has 242 karma (131 in this channel)
17:17:39 <tantek> q?
17:17:41 <wilkie> julien++
17:17:41 <Loqi> slow down!
17:17:49 <wilkie> tantek: any questions about pubsub? any comments or issues?
17:18:02 <wilkie> TOPIC: LDN Working Draft to CR
17:18:13 <wilkie> tantek: so we will move on to LDN and moving that from WD to CR
17:19:09 <rhiaro> https://github.com/w3c/ldn/issues/52
17:19:47 <wilkie> rhiaro: we have one new issue since last week. this came from someone coming from i18n although not necessarily from that i18n group about the word 'inbox' and say you were an implementation of LDN related to emails and if you got a notification or error and used 'inbox' the meaning would be confusing.
17:20:12 <wilkie> rhiaro: the thread is long and has our argument and there isn't quite a good word to use
17:20:15 <tantek> q?
17:20:21 <eprodrom> q+
17:20:26 <wilkie> tantek: let's go to the queue as this is probably worth discussing
17:20:57 <wilkie> tantek: the only thing I'll raise as a related issue is there was a rather long thread about a user story about inbox that we changed but that wasn't a specification where there may be reasoning to draw from
17:21:02 <wilkie> tantek: I can't remember the issue number
17:21:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> we had discussion going back a year at least on "inbox" being a poor term.  I remember discussing this at F2F at MIT i think last year or two years ago
17:21:20 <eprodrom> Twitter calls it a home timeline https://dev.twitter.com/rest/reference/get/statuses/home_timeline
17:21:30 <wilkie> rhiaro: the user story was supposed to be a general description of what is happening where the terms weren't necessarily appropriate
17:21:30 <tantek> q?
17:21:41 <tantek> ack eprodrom
17:21:45 <wilkie> tantek: while I look for that issue I'll ack eprodrom
17:22:12 <wilkie> eprodrom: on this topic, there don't seem to be great alternatives to 'inbox'. twitter calls it a 'home timeline' and on facebook calls it a 'feed' and other systems that call it an 'inbox'
17:22:23 <wilkie> eprodrom: I understand there are tricky bits to it but it seems not worse than other names.
17:22:30 <wilkie> eprodrom: what I'm say is that there aren't great alternatives.
17:22:38 <cwebber2`> cwebber2` has joined #social
17:22:53 <wilkie> rhiaro: right, that's what I thought. as 'inbox' is confusing for the context of emails, but other alternatives as 'feed' are equally confusing.
17:23:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> q+
17:23:17 <cwebber2> q+
17:23:20 <tantek> q?
17:23:23 <tantek> ack ben_thatmustbeme
17:23:25 <wilkie> eprodrom: the tricky part is if this is Amy's 'feed' the difference between what things Amy has published vs. what other's have published and that can be confusing to everybody
17:23:28 <wilkie> tantek: go ahead ben
17:24:02 <wilkie> ben_thatmustbeme: if this is specific to LDN can we name it something related to LDN? like "notifications-inbox" or something to make it specific to that stack.
17:24:19 <wilkie> rhiaro: we are aligning with activitypub to align things with pump.io
17:24:28 <cwebber2> activitypub refers to it as well
17:24:32 <cwebber2> and also mentions "outbox"
17:24:36 <cwebber2> rhiaro beat me to it ;)
17:24:48 <wilkie> ben_thatmustbeme: but this takes the place of that section in activitypub
17:25:18 <wilkie> rhiaro: but activitypub refers to inbox as well and has 'outbox'. cwebber2 also mentions that. I don't think it is worth that effort to change it.
17:25:35 <wilkie> rhiaro: and other people from the i18n group also replied and don't think this is an issue
17:26:00 <wilkie> rhiaro: it came up on their call in the last 5 minutes
17:26:05 <cwebber2> I also am queued
17:26:05 <tantek> I can't seem to find the giant github thread re: inbox in user-story
17:26:06 <cwebber2> but
17:26:08 <tantek> q?
17:26:10 <tantek> ack cwebber2
17:26:11 <wilkie> sandro: rhiaro, do you want a resolution on this issue from the group?
17:26:14 <tantek> ack cwebber
17:26:16 <wilkie> rhiaro: yeah.
17:26:28 <wilkie> cwebber2: I want to weigh in and say we are in a space where it is hard to overload terms
17:26:57 <wilkie> cwebber2: for instance, "object" is a very overloaded term we use in this space. and "actor" and you can say it is already defined in "actor model" and such.
17:27:22 <rhiaro> PROPOSAL: Close LDN issue 52 without change as there isn't a better term that makes it worth changing at this point
17:27:22 <aaronpk> that's what flickr did with their early oauth prototype... they had "frobs" which were "flickr objects"
17:27:23 <wilkie> cwebber2: avoiding this seems very difficult and our goal should be to define exactly what these terms mean and that's what these specifications do.
17:27:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro++ lol
17:27:28 <Loqi> sandro has 36 karma (31 in this channel)
17:27:29 <bengo> +1
17:27:42 <sandro> +1
17:27:44 <rhiaro> +1
17:27:46 <wilkie> tantek: I'm seeing some censensus within the group and see nobody rejecting and ben_thatmustbeme raised a question and seems to be answered
17:27:49 <cwebber2> +1
17:27:53 <dmitriz> +1
17:27:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> +0
17:27:57 <eprodrom> +1
17:28:06 <csarven> +1
17:28:06 <wilkie> tantek: does anybody object? well, if you do object, put a minus 1, and for this a plus 1 and if you don't care a 0
17:28:10 <aaronpk> +0
17:28:10 <wilkie> +1
17:28:46 <wilkie> tantek: not seeing objections, seeing all positives, so let's resolve this
17:28:48 <tantek> For related reference: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28-minutes#Rename_inbox_user_story
17:28:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> we also discussed it at an F2F but it was during lunch
17:28:59 <wilkie> tantek: I did find the minutes of when we discussed the naming of inbox and it was a year ago
17:29:01 <ben_thatmustbeme> and a heated lunch discussion as i remember
17:29:06 <ben_thatmustbeme> :P
17:29:12 <wilkie> tantek: not that it matters. there's no need to make changes here, there's just more background.
17:29:23 <rhiaro> RESOLVED: Close LDN issue 52 without change as there isn't a better term that makes it worth changing at this point
17:29:26 <wilkie> tantek: alright, rhiaro, let's resolve that
17:29:38 <wilkie> rhiaro: on that note, I don't think we have any outstanding issues.
17:29:58 <wilkie> rhiaro: we have a security issue but I think that's wrapped up.
17:30:22 <wilkie> rhiaro: it is worth mentioning that there are 9 implementations and input on github from 21 people not in the group
17:30:37 <wilkie> rhiaro: and a bunch of discussion
17:30:54 <rhiaro> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/LDN_CR_Transition_Request#Implementations
17:31:03 <wilkie> rhiaro: and csarven and I have something we are working on presenting and getting email feedback from that
17:31:14 <wilkie> rhiaro: on that note, I'd like to propose to take LDN to CR at the next available opportunity
17:31:46 <wilkie> tantek: seems like we got the issues resolved and that is a great number of implementations to go to CR with so thank you for getting that done
17:31:56 <wilkie> tantek: as discussed at the face-to-face you've taken care of the wide review
17:32:12 <wilkie> tantek: as far as conformance classes and criteria you've done that. do you have a test suite?
17:32:29 <wilkie> rhiaro: we have a lot of that but the user facing since has some work, but the bulk of it, yes
17:32:29 <csarven> https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/tests/
17:32:37 <wilkie> tantek: do you have a page with the status of that?
17:33:14 <wilkie> rhiaro: it is just an empty page at the moment
17:33:24 <wilkie> sandro: I don't see it in the draft
17:33:28 <wilkie> rhiaro: we have to add it to the draft
17:33:36 <wilkie> tantek: another thing you can add is a placeholder for implementation reports
17:34:01 <wilkie> sandro: if they were both on github I could star them and be notified of changes. although if I had an LDN client I guess I would be! but I don't have a client
17:34:04 <wilkie> rhiaro: we could fix that
17:34:17 <wilkie> rhiaro: yeah, we'll get that all linked before the CR
17:34:49 <wilkie> tantek: those are the only things I'm seeing that are missing: the links to where the test suite will be and a rough statement "the test suite is coming" and the implementation reports and where they will be
17:34:53 <wilkie> rhiaro: yeah
17:34:59 <tantek> q?
17:35:02 <wilkie> tantek: that's all that is missing and those are editorial changes we could say would take you only a day or two
17:35:05 <wilkie> rhiaro: yeah
17:35:05 <bigbluehat> present+ Benjamin_Young
17:35:05 <wilkie> tantek: anything else?
17:35:17 <wilkie> tantek: sandro and I are just looking at things we will be asked at the transition call
17:35:27 <wilkie> tantek: ok, let's do it. make a proposal to take LDN to CR
17:35:27 <rhiaro> PROPOSAL: Take LDN TO CR
17:35:32 <rhiaro> s/TO/to
17:35:35 <sandro> +1
17:35:37 <wilkie> +1
17:35:40 <cwebber2> +1
17:35:41 <rhiaro> +1
17:35:43 <bigbluehat> +1
17:35:44 <csarven> +1
17:35:45 <dmitriz> +1
17:35:49 <eprodrom> +1
17:35:56 <tantek> +1
17:35:57 <aaronpk> +1
17:36:03 <eprodrom> q+
17:36:06 <bengo> +1
17:36:09 <tantek> ack eprodrom
17:36:49 <rhiaro> RESOLVED: Take LDN TO CR
17:37:04 <wilkie> eprodrom: I have a question that may come up in the CR meeting... do we have something in there that links to social web protocols / other specs?
17:37:25 <eprodrom> csarven++
17:37:25 <Loqi> csarven has -31 karma (7 in this channel)
17:37:26 <rhiaro> https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/#subscribing-to-notifications
17:37:27 <eprodrom> rhiaro++
17:37:27 <Loqi> rhiaro has 243 karma (132 in this channel)
17:37:29 <eprodrom> Great job!
17:37:33 <csarven> Thank you all!
17:37:47 <cwebber2> \o/
17:37:51 <wilkie> tantek: thank you csarven and rhiaro for your hard work. I know you wanted to take it to CR at the face-to-face and now what you are taking to CR is stronger.
17:37:55 <wilkie> csarven++
17:37:55 <Loqi> csarven has -30 karma (8 in this channel)
17:38:01 <csarven> w00t w00t
17:38:25 <wilkie> tantek: that takes us to eprodrom and getting back to your issue or question about social web procotols about the relation to LDN and pubsub?
17:38:35 <tantek> Next topic: relation between LDN and PubSub - is it documented in SWP?
17:38:51 <wilkie> eprodrom: yeah, to answer questions about when we have more than one protocol in the use case area. if they are taken care of in social web protocols is that fine?
17:39:02 <rhiaro> https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/#subscribing-to-notifications
17:39:04 <wilkie> rhiaro: I still have to get social web protocols caught up with pub sub.
17:39:37 <wilkie> rhiaro: and adding LDN and subscribing to notifications. LDN only deals with delivery and not subscribing and we talked about PuSH as a method of subscribing and that helps us a bit.
17:39:57 <wilkie> rhiaro: there will be certainly a blow-by-blow alignment in social web protocols but not necessarily LDN
17:40:00 <wilkie> eprodrom: thanks
17:40:24 <wilkie> tantek: I think we could have a section in Social web protocols that mention this that would be good as something we could link to to help us in that transition call if we should need it
17:40:28 <wilkie> rhiaro: yeah
17:40:37 <wilkie> tantek: I'll let you track that issue yourself
17:40:48 <rhiaro> It will be in https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/#subscribing
17:40:49 <tantek> q?
17:40:50 <Loqi> [Amy Guy] Social Web Protocols
17:40:56 <wilkie> tantek: I think we are now done with LDN, yes? any other questions?
17:41:01 <wilkie> tantek: nope. thank you rhiaro
17:41:19 <rhiaro> I'd be delighted
17:41:20 <wilkie> tantek: sandro, since rhiaro is the author do you want to take the staff role?
17:41:25 <wilkie> sandro: I think rhiaro can do that too
17:41:31 <wilkie> tantek: alright, rhiaro, you have a lot on your plate
17:41:38 <wilkie> sandro: rhiaro, I can help if you need
17:42:00 <wilkie> tantek: if we can group with another CR, great, if not, we might want to do it sooner than later since the time for the group is running out.
17:42:05 <tantek> Next topic: Webmention CR->PR status - aaronpk
17:42:09 <wilkie> tantek: that takes us to webmention CR to PR status
17:42:14 <wilkie> tantek: aaronpk, please go ahead
17:42:27 <wilkie> aaronpk: not much new. I did look in to the two features in the list that only have 1 implementation
17:42:46 <wilkie> aaronpk: I looked around at implementations that didn't submit a report and found 1 that did add this feature
17:43:00 <wilkie> aaronpk: which is good but I asked them to submit a report but don't know how long it will take for them to do that
17:43:07 <wilkie> aaronpk: don't know if we can count that implementation without a report
17:43:22 <wilkie> aaronpk: the other feature, I don't know of any person that is doing that. not sure what to do there.
17:43:35 <wilkie> aaronpk: it doesn't affect interoperability, so maybe we can get around that that way.
17:43:52 <wilkie> aaronpk: it doesn't affect interoperability at all, so I'm looking at advice for those.
17:44:00 <wilkie> tantek: not normative? or it is?
17:44:07 <wilkie> aaronpk: let me pull up the exact sentence
17:44:17 <wilkie> aaronpk: it is under security considerations
17:44:34 <aaronpk> "Receivers may periodically re-verify Webmentions and update them."
17:44:43 <wilkie> tantek: that sounds normative but optional. if you can add a note to the report stating what you just stated... that gets you to 2 implementations or just 1?
17:44:53 <wilkie> aaronpk: just one but that feature doesn't affect interoperability
17:45:16 <wilkie> tantek: right. well, "MAY" is optional so we need to know somebody implements that so if you document that
17:45:22 <wilkie> aaronpk: there is 1 implementation
17:45:25 <wilkie> tantek: there's no second one?
17:45:46 <wilkie> aaronpk: no, I haven't found a second but I found a second implementation of the first and it is open source and I can link to it
17:46:09 <wilkie> tantek: ok, but they are both optional. that first one is probably more important to document you have 2 implementations
17:46:16 <wilkie> tantek: sandro, anything to add?
17:46:25 <wilkie> sandro: I don't think it is that much worry
17:46:35 <wilkie> tantek: ok, the only remaining thing in that list is "errata process"
17:46:46 <wilkie> tantek: so, aaronpk, what is your process to document errata
17:46:49 <wilkie> aaronpk: github issues
17:46:58 <wilkie> tantek: so, that's accepting, but how will you deal with issues?
17:47:11 <wilkie> aaronpk: in the absence of the working group, is there any ability to spec?
17:47:17 <ben_thatmustbeme> you could use webmention.net at the location for it?
17:47:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> s/you could/could you/
17:47:47 <wilkie> tantek: you won't be able to publish updates to the recommendation so that's why we work to resolve these now
17:48:16 <wilkie> aaronpk: let's say that errata are published on webmention.net after they go through github issues
17:48:45 <wilkie> tantek: ok, if you can pick a URL to say "this is where errata will be published" and link to that in the header like many w3c specs have a link to where they expect to find errata
17:48:49 <wilkie> aaronpk: ok, I can do that
17:49:14 <wilkie> tantek: in terms of processing them since we won't have a group to resolve conflicts you may want to document on webmention.net or elsewhere what your process is for handling issues
17:49:18 <wilkie> aaronpk: what is normal in this case?
17:49:53 <wilkie> tantek: great question. this is an area that is evolving at w3c. many groups are having various success with varying methods. sandro, do you have opinions?
17:49:56 <wilkie> sandro: the question is?
17:50:13 <wilkie> tantek: what is a good process for raising and processing issues after the group is closed? what are good processes you've seen?
17:50:45 <ben_thatmustbeme> would this be a good time to discuss community group as a continuation for the group?
17:51:11 <wilkie> sandro: I've seen two depending if there is staff or not. I've seen a wiki or repo that gathers issues and a community group... having a public list where a public space can comment on that and reflecting consensus when they see it
17:51:27 <wilkie> tantek: much like aaronpk had discussed and have github issues--
17:51:39 <wilkie> sandro: as long as people aren't just closing issues
17:52:15 <wilkie> tantek: so as now issues can't be closed other than by the person that raised them or group consensus
17:52:39 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Github_Process
17:53:44 <wilkie> tantek: I'm looking for explicit documentation about where errata issues are documented and discussed and a process. and if you think this is good, you use this or come up with something else and you write that down and link to that URL.
17:53:54 <wilkie> tantek: so people can look at that errata and know what has changed since the spec
17:53:58 <wilkie> aaronpk: and that goes somewhere in the spec?
17:54:04 <wilkie> tantek: it goes in an errata section
17:54:23 <eprodrom> q+
17:54:28 <wilkie> sandro: actually it is in the template and it is in the header and respec will do that you just say what that errata url is
17:54:46 <tantek> q?
17:54:53 <wilkie> tantek: yeah, respec should have that and that will show what the process is and the spec only has that one thing it links to
17:55:03 <tantek> ack eprodrom
17:55:06 <wilkie> sandro: if you look at existing specs they will have an errata section above the abstract
17:55:23 <wilkie> eprodrom: I think what we are saying is that there will be an errata document that will be linked from the spec
17:55:55 <wilkie> eprodrom: I guess I'm confused about access to github... can we put an errata document on github and link to that and still have access when the group closes?
17:56:02 <wilkie> sandro: we can keep the access to github, yeah
17:56:12 <wilkie> eprodrom: so linking to github will be sufficient for errata?
17:56:39 <wilkie> tantek: yeah. github seems like a reasonable place to put that. unless there are clear objections, I would put that choice to the editors
17:56:52 <wilkie> tantek: but once the group closes the errata doesn't have an official standing
17:57:04 <wilkie> eprodrom: what has tradionally happened with errata in other specs?
17:57:29 <wilkie> eprodrom: is there a treshold? where something is so clearly unimplementable that we need a 1.1 version of the spec or do they just pile up?
17:57:56 <wilkie> tantek: both things have happened. sometimes a working group starts back up to review and publish new documents and there are processes where you can amend a document
17:58:13 <wilkie> sandro: I don't think so. it has to be approved by an advisory group so I think there needs to be a working group
17:58:34 <wilkie> tantek: I believe the staff can do that. it still goes to an advisory committee can do but staff can do that in absense of a group?
17:58:44 <wilkie> sandro: you may be right
17:59:15 <wilkie> tantek: you don't want to do it for editorial things but as eprodrom said, severe things may be sufficient reasons to request w3c staff time to through this process
17:59:20 <wilkie> tantek: a judgment call
17:59:24 <wilkie> eprodrom: alright good here
17:59:46 <wilkie> tantek: sounds like once the links are added, we have what we need for a PR transition call, right sandro?
18:00:11 <wilkie> sandro: going from CR to PR... yes. it may be just a mailing list thing... sometimes people make the call that a meeting isn't necessary
18:00:27 <tantek> PROPOSED: Take Webmention CR->PR
18:00:29 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
18:00:36 <aaronpk> +1
18:00:36 <wilkie> +1
18:00:39 <cwebber2> +1
18:00:47 <wilkie> tantek: if we missed any details, I'm sure people will bring them up
18:00:56 <wilkie> sandro: do we need details about things that aren't implemented?
18:01:08 <wilkie> aaronpk: everything is implemented and there is one feature that only has 1 implementation
18:01:18 <wilkie> sandro: we aren't worried because that is an optional feature
18:01:19 <wilkie> aaronpk: right
18:01:35 <wilkie> sandro: well let's note that so they know that this is the justification
18:02:08 <wilkie> tantek: right, and so anyone whether or not it is the director can see that justification and know why we decided to push this forward
18:02:15 <ben_thatmustbeme> hi director reading this later :)
18:02:27 <sandro> +1 since the WG is satisfied with the level of implementation
18:02:29 <bengo> q+ to ask "What part of the Social WG chartered deliverables does Webmention fulfill?" It's mentioned as possible input to "A Web protocol to allow the federation of activity-based status updates and other data". Webmention alone isn't that. ActivityPub is closer, but doesn't mention activitypub
18:02:29 <wilkie> tantek: and if we need a call... can we piggyback that with LDN?
18:02:32 <wilkie> sandro: yes
18:02:34 <wilkie> tantek: good
18:02:35 <tantek> ack bengo
18:02:35 <Zakim> bengo, you wanted to ask "What part of the Social WG chartered deliverables does Webmention fulfill?" It's mentioned as possible input to "A Web protocol to allow the federation of
18:02:38 <Zakim> ... activity-based status updates and other data". Webmention alone isn't that. ActivityPub is closer, but doesn't mention activitypub
18:02:48 <wilkie> bengo: you can mostly read that
18:03:12 <wilkie> bengo: is webmention the federation part of our charter? where does it sit in regarding the charter deliverables
18:03:32 <wilkie> sandro: my answer is that we have gone with multiple solutions because we didn't have consensus and that LDN and webmention are both solutions for federation
18:03:57 <bengo> bengo has joined #social
18:03:59 <csarven> Still alive.
18:04:02 <tantek> Zakim, who is here?
18:04:02 <Zakim> Present: eprodrom, aaronpk, rhiaro, csarven, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, julien, +, bengo, tantek, sandro, !, Benjamin_Young
18:04:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see bengo, cwebber2, dmitriz, KevinMarks, tantek, Zakim, RRSAgent, timbl, eprodrom, jasnell, shepazu, strugee, csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, pdurbin, raucao, wilkie,
18:04:04 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot
18:04:06 <wilkie> tantek: any other concerns? I'm not sure if we lost csarven and rhiaro
18:04:16 <rhiaro> +1
18:04:30 <bengo> (for my record, I mean't "ActivityPub is closer to [a complete federation protocol] but doesn't mention webmention)
18:04:30 <bengo> +1
18:04:31 <rhiaro> Oh, does webmention link to SWP in the end?
18:04:31 <wilkie> tantek: this is our first PR. I was hoping to get people on the record. if there are any questions or comments to get those documented
18:04:37 <cwebber2> +1
18:04:41 <rhiaro> That was missing a while ago, and we said all our specs would. I forget if that was resolved
18:05:05 <wilkie> eprodrom: we need to add to the proposal to add that we need to add the errata link
18:05:09 <wilkie> sandro: that's part of the process
18:05:23 <wilkie> eprodrom: right, ok. in the past we've had to add edits at some point
18:05:25 <eprodrom> +1
18:05:27 <aaronpk> rhiaro, yes it does https://webmention.net/draft/#social-web-working-group
18:05:29 <Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Webmention
18:05:36 <rhiaro> thanks aaronpk
18:05:38 <wilkie> tantek: these are editorial edits and either I or sandro at some point would just let those edits through
18:05:51 <wilkie> sandro: it can't actually go through the process without it
18:06:23 <wilkie> tantek: I think we can declare this resolved. I see no objections. most of the folks here are saying plus 1
18:06:27 <eprodrom> WOW
18:06:31 <tantek> RESOLVED: Webmention CR->PR
18:06:33 <ben_thatmustbeme> woo!
18:06:41 <wilkie> tantek: I assume we need a similar wiki page for the CR transition request for the PR transition request
18:06:49 <eprodrom> aaronpk++
18:06:49 <Loqi> aaronpk has 1121 karma (64 in this channel)
18:07:06 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk++
18:07:06 <Loqi> aaronpk has 1122 karma (65 in this channel)
18:07:11 <wilkie> tantek: aaronpk, if you can start that page on the wiki and rhiaro and I can make sure we have all our 't's crossed before we take it to the director
18:07:26 <wilkie> aaronpk: sure I can do that
18:07:41 <cwebber2> still lots of topics to go too...
18:07:47 <wilkie> tantek: reminder: last week we reserved 90 minutes for this call. I realize we are 7 minutes over our normally scheduled time
18:07:53 <wilkie> tantek: right cwebber2
18:07:58 <tantek> q?
18:08:06 <tantek> Next topic: Micropub CR->PR
18:08:06 <wilkie> TOPIC: Micropub CR to PR
18:08:15 <wilkie> tantek: how are we doing, aaronpk?
18:08:32 <wilkie> aaronpk: lots of progress since last week. the test suite now has tests for each feature
18:08:41 <wilkie> aaronpk: it has a tool to add your own endpoint and run the tests
18:08:52 <wilkie> aaronpk: things like adding posts, querying the endpoint, testing authentication, etc
18:08:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> its really nice
18:09:04 <wilkie> aaronpk: I request that anybody who is interested go check it out
18:09:20 <wilkie> aaronpk: you can submit the implementation report from the tool itself to save people from the process of filling out the github thing
18:09:26 <aaronpk> https://micropub.rocks/implementation-report/server/19/BOgTNq3KDk2DmPKnMVpl
18:09:36 <wilkie> aaronpk: the way it works is that it automatically checks off the features as it goes
18:09:47 <aaronpk> https://micropub.rocks/reports
18:09:51 <wilkie> aaronpk: here is my implementation report and you can see the list of features my implementation supports
18:09:59 <wilkie> aaronpk: and this URL shows the full list of reports
18:10:10 <wilkie> aaronpk: and this is how we can compare which features have implementations
18:10:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> i'll have one within the week
18:10:32 <wilkie> aaronpk: I just finished this and so there aren't any reports except for mine so I have to work on getting people to submit them
18:10:39 <aaronpk> https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/
18:10:41 <Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Micropub
18:10:53 <wilkie> aaronpk: the new CR draft went up this morning based on the call last week
18:11:07 <wilkie> tantek: ok. that's good. that means we have a new 4 week CR period starting today. ending 4 weeks from today.
18:11:21 <wilkie> tantek: so we have to wait at least until then until we propose going to PR
18:11:25 <wilkie> sandro: yep
18:11:38 <wilkie> aaronpk: and that date is November 10th which is a week before our face-to-face
18:11:43 <aaronpk> oops
18:11:45 <aaronpk> s/10th/15th
18:12:00 <wilkie> tantek: congrats on your implementation reports and you have 4 weeks to get those implementation reports from other people
18:12:09 <wilkie> tantek: the more you can get from outside the group the better
18:12:26 <wilkie> tantek: if you want to prepare in advance, just as you are for webmention, if you document the errata process that will check that off as well
18:12:35 <wilkie> aaronpk: I'll do the same for micropub as I do for webmention
18:12:49 <wilkie> tantek: seems like nothing else to do here. should we bring it back up in 2 weeks? or sooner?
18:12:49 <tantek> q?
18:13:05 <wilkie> aaronpk: I'm happy to give a short status update every week. basically just an update on the number of implementation reports
18:13:18 <wilkie> tantek: that's fine just as document status so we have more time for documents that need more discussion
18:13:21 <wilkie> aaronpk: great
18:13:29 <tantek> q?
18:13:38 <wilkie> tantek: alright, good progress and we'll see how the reports go
18:13:47 <wilkie> tantek: any questions? to be clear: no PR until 4 weeks from today.
18:14:03 <wilkie> aaronpk: I would like to do the vote for PR at the face-to-face since the time will be up by then
18:14:09 <tantek> q?
18:14:10 <wilkie> tantek: ok. you can add that to the topics for the face-to-face then
18:14:18 <wilkie> tantek: let's go to AS2 CR to P$
18:14:21 <wilkie> s/P$/PR
18:14:24 <tantek> Next topic: AS2 CR->PR status Evan & James
18:14:26 <wilkie> TOPIC: AS2 CR to PR
18:14:43 <wilkie> eprodrom: running through our checklist for PR status, the most important is the issues and any open normative issues
18:14:53 <wilkie> eprodrom: we have only editorial issues except one normative issue we talked about already
18:15:16 <wilkie> eprodrom: this changes a requirement from MAY to SHOULD and we talked about it and decided it won't take the same effort to redo the editorial process
18:15:32 <wilkie> eprodrom: as far as issues are concerned we are doing well. I do need to clean out editorial issues
18:15:37 <wilkie> eprodrom: I can do that over the next week or so
18:16:00 <wilkie> eprodrom: we have a couple of comments that are still waiting for a reply from the commenter... I believe we said around 30 days for those if there is no response?
18:16:08 <wilkie> eprodrom: so it may be time to start to wrap those up
18:16:18 <wilkie> eprodrom: rhiaro has done a couple of those so I don't know if we should wrap those up or not
18:16:36 <wilkie> tantek: sooner is better... if we need a changes it would reset the clock
18:16:39 <wilkie> eprodrom: understood.
18:16:53 <eprodrom> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/338
18:17:18 <wilkie> eprodrom: we have a couple of requests that we decided, for example markup in the name where the poster wanted markup in the name but we decided in the group not to do that and we are waiting for their response
18:17:30 <wilkie> eprodrom: we decided we would wait. I'm happy closing without the response.
18:17:58 <wilkie> eprodrom: both the ones we have outstanding we decided not to implement are not normative changes
18:17:58 <eprodrom> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/336
18:18:52 <wilkie> tantek: what we need with these issues is a comment "the working group decided <whatever the resolution was>" and a link to show our due dilligence to show to the director that we resolved this issue and the commenter didn't respond or disagreed
18:19:18 <wilkie> eprodrom: I can do that. that's probably the best way to do it for now
18:19:35 <wilkie> eprodrom: the other question is whether or not we had features not covered by test document
18:19:47 <wilkie> eprodrom: everything we marked as a "feature" is covered by a test document and covered by the validator
18:19:57 <wilkie> eprodrom: I think we have sufficient test coverage there to say we are testing all the features
18:20:00 <wilkie> tantek: great news
18:20:06 <wilkie> eprodrom: that was a big step and we are past that
18:20:21 <wilkie> eprodrom: the last big item for us is implementations and implementation reports
18:20:34 <rhiaro> I can do an implementation report for my site
18:20:44 <rhiaro> (when it's un-broken again)
18:20:47 <wilkie> eprodrom: we will have 2 reports from the editors and we are looking for reports on public implementations such as pump.io and mediagoblin
18:21:11 <wilkie> eprodrom: we have a couple of incoming notifications on incoming implementations and am not sure they will be complete before we move to PR
18:21:23 <wilkie> eprodrom: one was from Twitter which is exciting and another open source one
18:21:29 <wilkie> eprodrom: we will likely have around 5 implementations
18:21:45 <wilkie> tantek: did I hear correctly? we expect Twitter to implement AS2?
18:21:58 <wilkie> eprodrom: yes. this was an incoming request from Twitter that said they would implement AS2
18:22:06 <bengo> investigating is different that "we expect"
18:22:13 <wilkie> eprodrom: I didn't hold them to this to ask "how would this be used" but yes, it was incoming from Twitter engineernig
18:22:28 <wilkie> sandro: I think it would be worth waiting if it gets them on board with the announcement
18:22:40 <wilkie> sandro: and say "hey, would you like to be involved in the press for this?" and hold off a bit
18:23:13 <wilkie> eprodrom: yeah. I'll be as straight-forward as possible; this was not from high-level people from Twitter. It was Twitter engineers saying yeah we want to implement this.
18:23:34 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
18:23:48 <wilkie> sandro: traditionally, around the time your are at PR and go to REC, you get testimonials.
18:24:04 <wilkie> sandro: even if they haven't implemented it but they are willing to say they are looking at it, that's still a win-win there
18:24:07 <wilkie> eprodrom: sounds good
18:24:31 <wilkie> eprodrom: I would be reluctant to get an annoucement from Twitter but would be happy to reach out to those who reached out to me and see if they want to give a testimonial.
18:24:39 <wilkie> sandro: and if they tweet about it, we could just link to the tweet
18:25:07 <wilkie> tantek: and, yeah, try to get a course understanding if they want to implement this in a month or three months or just looking at it it helps us decide how to follow up on it
18:25:10 <wilkie> eprodrom: sounds good
18:25:21 <wilkie> tantek: and then you aren't getting a committment but rather a rough idea
18:25:36 <wilkie> tantek: if they say 1 month, ok, we can get an implementation report. just to set up expectations
18:25:39 <wilkie> eprodrom: I will do that
18:25:46 <wilkie> tantek: is there a link to the current implementation reports?
18:25:58 <wilkie> eprodrom: right now we don't have reports in the repo. it is in the same spot but no reports are in there
18:26:06 <eprodrom> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/tree/master/implementation-reports
18:26:09 <wilkie> eprodrom: we are waiting on reports from current implementers
18:26:14 <wilkie> tantek: including yourselves?
18:26:16 <wilkie> eprodrom: yeah
18:26:31 <aaronpk> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kH385v6skHbMre_bmz1Vyma8BDemt7WHlM0ZQwVXBOo/edit?usp=sharing
18:26:38 <wilkie> tantek: and a report summary. when you have many reports... like aaronpk-- can you drop a link to your report summary?
18:27:01 <wilkie> tantek: something like that. like a list of features or a test of the feature so we can see who got them and who supports them.
18:27:25 <wilkie> tantek: and the implementations from editors and people in the group and people outside the group to show the director
18:27:37 <wilkie> tantek: something to consider. it is not a requirement, it just helps
18:27:39 <wilkie> eprodrom: I hear you
18:27:47 <rhiaro> q+ to request another (up to) 15 minutes to make sure we fit AP in
18:27:49 <wilkie> tantek: and if you want to get a leg up, the errata process as well
18:28:01 <wilkie> eprodrom: sounds good
18:28:02 <tantek> q?
18:28:04 <tantek> ack rhiaro
18:28:04 <Zakim> rhiaro, you wanted to request another (up to) 15 minutes to make sure we fit AP in
18:28:08 <wilkie> tantek: any questions on AS2 progress?
18:28:29 <tantek> Next topic: ActivityPub WD->CR status
18:28:35 <wilkie> tantek: as rhiaro mentions, we only have a few minutes left so I'll ask cwebber2 how much time he wants
18:28:44 <wilkie> cwebber2: I would like the group's feedback on if we can get to CR
18:28:57 <sandro> +1 extending 15m
18:28:57 <wilkie> tantek: are folks able to go another 15 minutes?
18:29:00 <wilkie> +1
18:29:17 <wilkie> tantek: thanks to wilkie for being awesome (paraphrasing)
18:29:20 <cwebber2> http://w3c.github.io/activitypub/
18:29:29 <wilkie> tantek: cwebber2 walk us through what's next for activitypub to CR
18:29:40 <wilkie> cwebber2: we did get so much feedback and tried to incorporate everything
18:29:46 <wilkie> cwebber2: I think we got through all the issues worth addressing
18:29:48 <cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues
18:29:55 <bengo> bengo has joined #social
18:29:59 <cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/156
18:30:02 <rhiaro> wilkie++ for scribing forever
18:30:02 <Loqi> wilkie has 37 karma
18:30:23 <wilkie> cwebber2: still 19 issues open but I think they are all editorial with exception of #156 which was said to be a blocking for activity pub support on some existing implementations
18:30:50 <wilkie> cwebber2: as in if patrick stewart publishes a mention to 1 million subscribers that servers don't get overloaded exchanging that
18:31:05 <wilkie> cwebber2: we have a solution that diaspora seems to support but friendica hasn't responded
18:31:12 <cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/155
18:31:39 <wilkie> cwebber2: someone in #155 mentions adding a history feature which sounds awesome but getting it right in this small timeframe would be difficult given the time and it would work as an extension
18:31:53 <wilkie> cwebber2: I think we addressed the major issues. there is feedback I still want to record from the wide review.
18:32:18 <rhiaro> The test plan
18:32:30 <wilkie> cwebber2: I don't have the test plan but I could have it by the CR call
18:32:37 <wilkie> cwebber2: I could describe it briefly if that helps
18:32:51 <wilkie> tantek: I think we need a link to where the test suite will go and at that link describe the test plan description
18:33:21 <wilkie> tantek: there is confidence in the group that you can summarize what you would say there and point the director to that during the call and say we don't have it yet but this is how we would develop it in CR
18:33:49 <wilkie> tantek: I'm looking at the issues submitted to activitypub and congrats on the issues from outside the group. it is better to get those than not. good sign. congrats on that.
18:34:21 <wilkie> tantek: looking at the open issues, half of them seem editorial but the rest don't seem obviously editorial and that's something to resolve before moving forward
18:34:36 <KevinMarks2> KevinMarks2 has joined #social
18:34:40 <wilkie> cwebber2: a number of them *are* editorial but you're right we haven't proven they are editorial
18:34:47 <tantek> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues
18:34:50 <wilkie> cwebber2: should we postpone moving to CR until next week?
18:35:25 <wilkie> tantek: just by looking at that, it would be hard to say to the director "hey we resolved these issues" and it would be hard to explain away these open issues that aren't marked editorial
18:35:36 <wilkie> tantek: I think the director would push back on that to get the issues marked accordingly
18:35:39 <wilkie> tantek: sandro?
18:35:51 <wilkie> sandro: I haven't looked the issues so I don't know how to judge exactly
18:36:02 <wilkie> tantek: if it was one or two issues then we could take the burden of explaining those
18:36:11 <wilkie> sandro: we should have all the issues closed before we request
18:36:25 <wilkie> tantek: a lot of these are new
18:36:35 <wilkie> sandro: we should have gone to CR last week!
18:37:12 <wilkie> tantek: the challenge here is to provide some reasoning. even if you pass the director and go to CR, the issues these would pose would lead us to go to CR again and slow us down at getting through CR
18:37:16 <wilkie> tantek: that's the reasoning here
18:37:30 <wilkie> tantek: let's try to reduce that chance.. that's the goal
18:37:55 <wilkie> cwebber2: I managed to churn through a substantial number of issues last week. so I should be able to get through these by next week. let's postpone.
18:37:59 <wilkie> tantek: that seems wise
18:38:13 <wilkie> tantek: that's regarding issues. so, you will add the link to the test suite and summary.
18:38:20 <wilkie> tantek: sounds like you have many folks actively implementing?
18:38:22 <wilkie> cwebber2: yes
18:38:37 <wilkie> tantek: do you have an expected number of implementations to know how many reports you'd get?
18:39:04 <wilkie> cwebber2: my estimate is at least mediagoblin, the implementations I've done, rhiaro's implementation, someone else's implementation, and pump.io are at least 5
18:39:13 <wilkie> tantek: diaspora and friendica... any chance of reports from them?
18:39:24 <wilkie> cwebber2: it is unlikely diaspora will implement within the short time of this group
18:39:56 <wilkie> cwebber2: they are pushing hard on their own protocol. there are folks there that seem open to implementing it in diaspora and filing issues, and it is pivoting toward that but not fast enough for this group
18:40:04 <wilkie> cwebber2: more likely in friendica because they implement everything
18:40:14 <wilkie> tantek: any other implementations you are seeing as potential outside of the working group?
18:40:18 <wilkie> cwebber2: pump.io for one
18:40:25 <rhiaro> There are some individuals in Edinburgh who are looking at AP
18:40:31 <wilkie> tantek: oh ok. I was counting eprodrom in that but I guess they are outside the group at this point
18:40:40 <wilkie> cwebber2: yeah, depends. but eprodrom hasn't worked on that in a while so
18:40:49 <wilkie> eprodrom: yeah, I will be involved in that implementation, sorry!
18:41:00 <wilkie> eprodrom: I want to say that it would be a clean-room implementation but no, sorry
18:41:07 <wilkie> tantek: would rather that than not, so thanks eprodrom
18:41:17 <wilkie> cwebber2: I don't know at this point who outside of the group
18:41:20 <wilkie> tantek: friendica
18:41:26 <wilkie> cwebber2: not sure for certain
18:41:40 <wilkie> tantek: that's something we can work on. that's ok. I'm just going to keep asking the question so we continue to work on it
18:41:52 <wilkie> tantek: I think we know what to do to get activitypub closer to CR for next week?
18:41:55 <wilkie> cwebber2: yep
18:42:02 <wilkie> tantek: perhaps you can start the wiki page for the CR transition request?
18:42:10 <wilkie> tantek: that template can also remind you of additional details
18:42:15 <wilkie> cwebber2: it has been started already
18:42:18 <wilkie> tantek: sorry. I didn't find it.
18:42:32 <wilkie> tantek: I'm also thinking about other details we can get going in parallel while these issues are resolved
18:42:54 <wilkie> tantek: alright, this is one I'd like to carry forward to next week's agenda and get it closer to CR
18:43:00 <tantek> q?
18:43:07 <wilkie> tantek: any other questions on activitypub
18:43:52 <rhiaro> q-
18:43:53 <wilkie> tantek: ok. that takes us to the end of discussion items and we have a minute left in our extended telecon time
18:44:03 <tantek> q?
18:44:07 <wilkie> tantek: anyone else have any questions regarding document status or other business
18:44:10 <eprodrom> Whew
18:44:13 <eprodrom> Looooooong meeting
18:44:18 <eprodrom> \o/
18:44:18 <wilkie> tantek: not hearing anything
18:44:35 <wilkie> tantek: thanks everyone. this was a long meeting. I'm going to say that we should mark out 90 minutes for next week
18:44:53 <wilkie> tantek: probably only use 60 but if you could block out 90 minutes, that would be appreciated
18:45:00 <wilkie> tantek: eprodrom is chairing, is that good?
18:45:07 <wilkie> eprodrom: I have to check. I'll let you know over email
18:45:18 <wilkie> tantek: thanks everyone
18:45:30 <wilkie> sandro: if we could talk more seriously about pubsub and how close we are to PR on that
18:45:33 <wilkie> tantek: CR?
18:45:40 <wilkie> sandro: yeah, CR, sorry. test suites and such.
18:45:47 <wilkie> tantek: good point. julien, are you on the call?
18:45:54 <wilkie> sandro: he said he could only be on for 30 minutes so I assume not
18:46:02 <wilkie> tantek: ok. I'll add these to items to the agenda.
18:46:03 <tantek> q?
18:46:03 <aaronpk> *whew* well maybe now that micropub.rocks is done i can start a test suite for pubsub :)
18:46:06 <wilkie> tantek: and with that...
18:46:13 <sandro> +1000 aaronpk
18:46:26 <wilkie> tantek: aaronpk just volunteered to work on a test suite on pubsub
18:46:30 <wilkie> sandro: well he knows how to do it now
18:46:38 <wilkie> tantek: well we'll put your name on that item now
18:46:46 <wilkie> tantek: thanks everyone. good luck with all of your tasks
18:47:10 <tantek>  wilkie++ for minuting an extra long telcon!
18:53:24 <tantek> also congrats to both aaronpk on resolution to take webmention to PR, and rhiaro & csarven on resolution to take LDN to CR! thank you for all your diligent hard work.
18:53:27 <tantek> aaronpk++
18:53:28 <Loqi> aaronpk has 1123 karma (66 in this channel)
18:53:32 <tantek> rhiaro++
18:53:32 <Loqi> rhiaro has 244 karma (133 in this channel)
18:53:37 <tantek> csarven++
18:53:37 <Loqi> csarven has -30 karma (9 in this channel)
18:54:34 <csarven> Thanks team. Really happy with the progress
18:54:58 <tantek> csarven, it's been really impressive to see the rapid progress on LDN.
18:55:15 <csarven> It is almost like a day job.
18:55:38 <aaronpk> heh yeah, i've been spending day job amounts of time on this the past several weeks
18:55:41 <csarven> or a early morning job (like right now)
18:55:45 <csarven> an
18:56:21 <csarven> aaronpk: It will pay off. see step 3 in the profit model
18:56:35 <aaronpk> haha
18:56:36 <Loqi> awesome
18:57:47 <csarven> It goes without saying but the best part of us doing all this is that we want to use it
18:58:10 <aaronpk> definitely
18:58:27 <aaronpk> having these test tools has also helped my own implementations as well
18:59:47 <rhiaro> This determination to implement our own protocols has meant my website has been broken more times in the last year than ever before!
18:59:49 <csarven> Having the spec itself also help me iron out my implementation. The tests will probably help even more.
19:05:59 <tantek> I have drafted next week's telcon agenda starting with the discussion items we agreed to from today's call (namely, next steps for AS2, ActivityPub, and PubSub, in that order). Please add more here: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-25#Discussion_Items
19:06:01 <tantek> tantek has changed the topic to: Next meeting agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-25 and NEW TELECON DIALIN INFO https://www.w3.org/2015/10/social-wg-telecon. IRC logs: http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/today
19:06:02 <tantek> tantek has changed the topic to: Next meeting agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-25 and NEW TELECON DIALIN INFO https://www.w3.org/2015/10/social-wg-telecon. IRC logs: http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/today
19:07:35 <KjetilK> KjetilK has joined #social
19:20:30 <tantek> rhiaro: I forgot to request during the call, could you prepare an update to Social Web Protocols to go out on Thursday since PubSub is going to FPWD?
19:21:17 <tantek> I suppose that may have to just be an editor's draft update, until we can resolve to publish an update to SWP on next week's telcon
19:21:26 <tantek> I'll add to agenda
19:23:17 <rhiaro> Sure tantek
19:23:46 <rhiaro> Feel free to remind me if I don't seem to have done it by thursday
19:24:04 <rhiaro> Gonna send out transition requests for ldn and webmention then go to sleeeep
19:24:09 <tantek> Thank you!
19:24:19 <tantek> Yes - will be great if we can do those in the same telcon
19:36:37 <tantek> Updated https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Meetings for next meetings as well
19:36:51 <tantek> rhiaro: oh dear - hope you get some sleep and feel better
19:37:31 <tantek> In the morning (your time) could you add fragment IDs to your h2s on https://rhiaro.co.uk/2016/09/socialwg7-summary e.g. for "Wednesday demos" ? Thanks!
19:39:19 <rhiaro> good call
19:46:12 <rhiaro> trackbot, end meeting
19:46:12 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:46:12 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been eprodrom, aaronpk, rhiaro, csarven, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, julien, +, bengo, tantek, sandro, !, Benjamin_Young
19:46:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:46:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-social-minutes.html trackbot
19:46:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:46:21 <RRSAgent> I see no action items