15:01:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
15:01:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/16-social-irc
15:01:59 <Loqi> eprodrom: tantek left you a message 3 days, 17 hours ago: as ben_thatmustbeme pointed out https://chat.indieweb.org/social/2017-05-12/1494549526970000 as2.rocks appears to be unresponsive / not found - any chance you can fix this? The AS2 PRs (hopefully soon to be RECs) link directly to as2.rocks (as I'm sure you know :) )
15:02:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:02:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
15:02:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
15:02:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:02:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
15:02:04 <trackbot> Date: 16 May 2017
15:02:11 <tantek> present+
15:02:12 <aaronpk> present+
15:02:15 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+
15:02:19 <eprodrom> present+
15:02:55 <cwebber2> present+
15:02:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> *sigh*
15:03:07 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick:ben_thatmustbeme
15:03:39 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-16
15:03:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> TOPIC:approval of minutes form last week
15:04:14 <eprodrom> PROPOSED approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-09-minutes as minutes for 9 May 2017 telecon
15:04:18 <ben_thatmustbeme> chair: eprodrom
15:04:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribe: Ben Roberts
15:04:28 <cwebber2> +1
15:04:45 <eprodrom> +1
15:04:51 <aaronpk> +1
15:04:52 <tantek> I think I was chair, other than that +1 :)
15:05:04 <tantek> who is SV_MEETING_CHAIR?!?
15:05:34 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
15:06:06 <eprodrom> RESOLVED approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-09-minutes as minutes for 9 May 2017 telecon
15:07:06 <ben_thatmustbeme> TOPIC: charter extension and rechartering
15:07:35 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: we voted to request 6 month extension and we feel we would do a better quality of work
15:08:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: its not going to be as smooth as i was hoping, last week i had the impression it would be a straight forward thing, turns out not to be the case in that...
15:09:25 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: A couple years ago there was a rule added that groups cannot be extended past 6 months without talking to the AB
15:09:36 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: some other groups have hit this as well in the past
15:09:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: if you could find examples, that would be helpful
15:10:01 <Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102993&oldid=102992
15:10:01 <Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-09-minutes]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102994&oldid=102953
15:10:23 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: bottom line is we have to ask the AC for this, there is no specified response on how this works
15:10:51 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: in the past other groups just rechartered instead of asking for another extension for the AC
15:11:15 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... the only other I can think of is HTML media and that was a whole other issue
15:11:50 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... we might be the first group to try to do this without a charter scope change and without any formal objections in our history
15:12:16 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... it doesn't normally make a lot of sense to just do this short extension again
15:12:55 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: i don't feel like its really proper for us to recharter right now as it would mean we have to figure out new scope in the next week
15:13:51 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: whats driving this is really increased interest in our existing scope, we've got 2 RECs out, 2 more that are about to become RECs, we're seeing developer interest spiking this calendar year, multiple different specifications
15:14:37 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... so we want to extend our charter to take that developer input into consideration for our specs that are in CR and our specs that are in PR / REC there is a chance to do revisions where developers are evolving that technology
15:14:50 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... i believe that is all in our current scope
15:15:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... the specs with additional extensions that developers are working on as well
15:15:22 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... thats how i would explain it to W3M (?) myself
15:15:43 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... the first extension was that we needed time to finish wrapping up our specs, but the situation has changed now
15:16:01 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
15:16:30 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: i have no trouble convincing W3M about that, whats left is we need to convince AC, but there is no precedent for what we need on that
15:16:52 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... unless there is some issue the AC has with it, i think it seems like this will happen
15:17:50 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: i think if we can craft the message I think we will mostly see positive response from the AC
15:17:58 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: i don't want to take up more WG time on this
15:18:06 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... you and i can work out the details
15:18:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... i do feel like with the uncertainty here we should TRY to get to CR exit by the time our charter is up
15:18:39 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... and make our little back-log of things if we get more time
15:18:49 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... i think thats the responsible way to approach it
15:18:53 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: i think thats true
15:19:11 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: i should be able to get it to the AC, maybe tomorrow
15:19:31 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: it sounds like we have a plan going forward, is there anything else needed from the WG?
15:19:35 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: i don't think so
15:20:02 <ben_thatmustbeme> TOPIC: meeting next week
15:20:13 <cwebber2> +1 to meeting next week
15:20:16 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: any objections to meeting on the 23rd?
15:20:29 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: i cannot make it, but tantek would be chairing anyway
15:21:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: with no objections, lets plan on doing next week
15:21:08 <ben_thatmustbeme> TOPIC: PRs
15:21:53 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: AS2 and Micropub, amy and i sent of the transition request for those yesterday
15:22:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> i don't see any issue with as2 going to REC next week
15:22:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> micropub might have some small issues, not a lot of response, and one minor, non-formal objection
15:22:29 <aaronpk> q+
15:22:39 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: i'll let you know if those turn out to be issues
15:22:46 <eprodrom> ack aaronp
15:23:17 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: i just had a quick quesiton, in terms of not a lot of responses, is there something we can do for that? how can we help?
15:23:33 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: if it turns out that its not enough, i will go out and try to get more people to respond
15:23:56 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... in both these cases, if theres a problem,  i'll let you know
15:24:35 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: its odd in that we don't see much use in member companies, there are things like micro.blog launching with this as their main client API.
15:24:46 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... i've never seen this happen at W3C before
15:25:02 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: again, we'll deal with it if it becomes an issue
15:25:21 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: its more just a question, for me, of is it good for the web
15:26:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: we have one outstanding issue on AS2, it feels like an either/or issue about breaking out a section of the vocab document.  are we at a point where making editorial edits is not worth the work?
15:26:53 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: its ok to still do changes, sort-of, its also kind of annoying, so i don't know how important it is
15:27:21 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: i feel like its useful for adoption, its interesting but not crucial so i will try to resolve this with amy
15:28:02 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: if you can do it sooner, the better, i'd like to publish next tuesday
15:28:55 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: we don't usually see editorial changes between PR and REC, so its probably better to err on the side of safety and it may be better to leave it to the errata
15:29:57 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: basically its that amy suggested a primer and one section of the doc has a lot of implementation notes,  she suggested we edit those out and move it to a primer
15:30:02 <Loqi> Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102995&oldid=102993
15:30:30 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... the other option is that if we want to create a primer after this, it would be duplicating some of this in a seperate primer
15:31:06 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: it think it would be better to not make edits that are not in response to AC comments
15:31:34 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: i'm comfortable with that, i will discuss it with amy
15:31:51 <ben_thatmustbeme> TOPIC: CRs
15:32:08 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: i haven't been able to make any edits on PTD
15:33:05 <ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2: i have been working on the test suite, i've gotten pretty far on the client to server side stuff, but the test suite succeeded at being a test suite and i found some parts i was missing
15:33:42 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... lets have the goal be to send out requests for people to test out that portion of the test suite next week
15:33:47 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: next up is websub
15:34:11 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/102
15:34:11 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: for websub, we have 1 issue that i want to talk about, its here (irc link)
15:34:12 <Loqi> [aaronpk] #102 Why should subscribers return 2xx on invalid signatures?
15:34:55 <ben_thatmustbeme> the spec says to always return a 2xx even with invalid signatures
15:35:23 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... no one had any issues with allowing it to return anything, 4xx for issues for example
15:35:30 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... it doesn't effect interop
15:35:47 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... i went ahead and made the change in the spec already
15:36:02 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: is this change reflected in the test suite?
15:36:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: yes
15:36:19 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: have you seen any implementors that depended on 2xx reply?
15:36:50 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: if it has a correct signature, it still requires 2xx, it only effects bad signatures which you can't really test for
15:37:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> and some people wanted it to be able to return 410 gone for example
15:37:40 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: it makes a lot of sense to me, i've never been in the position of not being able to return accurate error codes, so this makes sense
15:37:45 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: makes sense to me too
15:38:05 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: i don't think we need a full vote, just having it noted in the minutes
15:38:11 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: do we need to make a new CR?
15:38:24 <sandro> q+
15:38:49 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: this was merged in 7 days ago, the question is it a normative features
15:39:27 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: because its loosening the constraints, it could technically be checking it for that exact error code...
15:39:42 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: but it would have to be sending a bad request
15:39:55 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: yeah, this seems to be a non-substantive change
15:40:02 <sandro> sandro: normative but couldnt-break-anything
15:40:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: this is non-breaking, non-substative, but still a normative change
15:40:56 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: there are 2 other issues in that discussion, there are some added text for how to migrate subscribers
15:41:15 <aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/106
15:41:15 <Loqi> [Alkarex] #106 Suggestion: Use HTTP 410 Gone
15:41:38 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... the other potentially problematic one is about (link in irc) which is that hubs recognize 410
15:42:09 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... it comes out of the previous issue of how to handle specific responses from the error after it gets a 410
15:42:19 <ben_thatmustbeme> this would change logic
15:42:35 <aaronpk> this would change what hubs are required to do
15:42:38 <ben_thatmustbeme> but it can be an extension as the spec would now allow 410
15:43:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: aaronpk just to be clear
15:43:45 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: are we looking to a resolution to this?
15:43:59 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: no, i just wanted to point out that it is an open issue
15:44:16 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... is it even something we should consider to the spec or just leave it as an extension
15:44:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> <ben_thatmustbeme> i'm +1 extension
15:45:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: again, if this is going to reset our clock perhaps we should leave it as a spec extension until we know for sure we have a group extension
15:45:40 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: that makes sense, i'm still waiting to hear, there are a lot of pubsubhubbub implementations out there, i'm waiting to see how many of them are compliant
15:45:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro:  i'm looking for ones like github or mastodon
15:46:13 <ben_thatmustbeme> lots of people have used off the shelf pubsubhubbub for years
15:46:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> our goal was to not break things there
15:46:28 <cwebber2> q+
15:46:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: GNUSocial would also be a good one here
15:46:34 <sandro> q-
15:46:36 <eprodrom> ack cwebber2
15:46:52 <ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2: would this be something good to bring to the community group friday
15:47:07 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: the testing against websub, definitely
15:47:33 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: i think we should ask ALL implementations showing up to submit implemention reports, since i think they all support it
15:47:45 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: anything else on websub?
15:47:57 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: if we want a new CR, we need a resolution
15:48:07 <aaronpk> https://w3c.github.io/websub/#changes-from-11-april-2017-cr-to-this-version
15:48:09 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: do you have a changes section?
15:48:32 <eprodrom> PROPOSED publish new CR for WebSub based changes listed at https://w3c.github.io/websub/#changes-from-11-april-2017-cr-to-this-version
15:49:00 <ben_thatmustbeme> <ben_thatmustbeme> can we add bit about not resetting the clock
15:49:03 <sandro> WG believe and this request is contingent on it not restarting CR clock
15:49:24 <cwebber2> +1
15:49:24 <sandro> +1
15:49:25 <aaronpk> +1
15:49:26 <tantek> +1 noting that informative guidelines reflect current webdev discussions of migration being important, and the only normative change is non-subtantive
15:49:30 <ben_thatmustbeme> <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
15:49:31 <eprodrom> +1
15:50:12 <eprodrom> RESOLVED publish new CR for WebSub based changes listed at https://w3c.github.io/websub/#changes-from-11-april-2017-cr-to-this-version
15:50:28 <aaronpk> 🎉
15:50:38 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: any other items?
15:50:48 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: any other doc statuses?
15:51:16 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: assuming we get REC published next week, we should ping amy to update SWP accordingly
15:52:05 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: i'm fine giving a blanket, SWP can be updated any time a document status changes
15:52:14 <ben_thatmustbeme> TOPIC: SWICG
15:52:21 <cwebber2> https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2017-05-19
15:52:26 <ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2: we have a meeting this friday (link in irc)
15:52:30 <cwebber2> https://doodle.com/poll/rnnsf2y2fgmiq8zb
15:52:41 <ben_thatmustbeme> we have also not settles on a weekly time
15:52:58 <ben_thatmustbeme> people voted in the last meeting they want it weekly, but i'd encourage you to fill it in
15:53:08 <ben_thatmustbeme> this would be for every week
15:53:38 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: that leaves us with, i have a note about cwebber2's representation
15:54:28 <ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2: i joined the verifiable claims WG, but that does some legal things
15:54:47 <ben_thatmustbeme> ... their call is at the exact same time as this group
15:55:19 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro: i know we picked this time to allow for amy, but she is on the move now
15:55:38 <ben_thatmustbeme> tantek: she is in japan now then to europe next week, then completely unknown
15:55:47 <tantek> s/tantek/sandro
15:56:04 <cwebber2> +1
15:56:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: we need to set up a poll for our weekly polls
15:56:23 <ben_thatmustbeme> s/polls/meetings/
15:56:33 <cwebber2> thanks!
15:56:36 <eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting
15:56:36 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:56:36 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been tantek, aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, eprodrom, cwebber
15:56:38 <tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++ for minuting!
15:56:38 <Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 70 karma in this channel (220 overall)
15:56:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:56:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/16-social-minutes.html trackbot
15:56:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:56:45 <RRSAgent> I see no action items