IRC log of social on 2017-10-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:00:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-social-irc
17:00:52 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:00:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:00:54 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:00:54 [trackbot]
Date: 31 October 2017
17:00:55 [cwebber2]
oh I should dial in eh
17:01:06 [cwebber2]
I'll be on in 2min
17:01:07 [rhiaro]
present+
17:01:09 [aaronpk]
present+
17:01:12 [eprodrom]
present+
17:01:37 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:01:39 [ajordan]
present+
17:01:44 [ajordan]
IRC only for a bit
17:01:53 [eprodrom]
ajordan, watch for the vote!
17:02:01 [ajordan]
eprodrom: of course :)
17:02:39 [rhiaro]
roll up roll up, SWWG meeting starting in T-3 minutes
17:04:04 [eprodrom]
sandro, are you joining us?
17:04:24 [sandro]
yes sorry
17:04:37 [cwebber2]
present+
17:05:49 [sandro]
present+
17:06:11 [eprodrom]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:06:17 [eprodrom]
chairnick: eprodrom
17:06:25 [ajordan]
.
17:06:35 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
17:06:42 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: approval of minutes 2017-10-24
17:06:46 [rhiaro]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-10-24-minutes
17:07:02 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-10-24-minutes as minutes for 24 Oct 2017 meeting
17:07:06 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
17:07:21 [cwebber2]
+1
17:07:22 [sandro]
+1
17:07:24 [eprodrom]
+1
17:07:41 [ajordan]
+1
17:07:58 [aaronpk]
+1
17:08:02 [rhiaro]
Zakim, who is here?
17:08:02 [Zakim]
Present: rhiaro, aaronpk, eprodrom, ajordan, cwebber, sandro
17:08:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see tantek, Zakim, RRSAgent, eprodrom, jankusanagi_, Loqi, xmpp-social, aaronpk, dlehn, er1n, cwebber2, adam, dlongley, DenSchub, jungkees, jaywink, raucao, saranix, bwn,
17:08:04 [Zakim]
... erincandescent, wilkie, jet, rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, Gargron, csarven, sknebel, melody, ajordan, mattl, bigbluehat, surinna, KjetilK, bitbear, howl, dwhly, tsyesika,
17:08:04 [Zakim]
... astronouth7303, sandro, nightpool, trackbot, puckipedia
17:08:46 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-10-24-minutes as minutes for 24 Oct 2017 meeting
17:09:26 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: ActivityPub
17:09:35 [tantek]
present+
17:09:41 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: cwebber2, get us started?
17:10:02 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: sandro put together a diff of changes since the last CR
17:10:06 [cwebber2]
https://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/diff/activitypub/20170907-20171030.html
17:10:07 [sandro]
https://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/diff/activitypub/20170907-20171030.html
17:10:08 [Loqi]
[Christopher Allan Webber] ActivityPub
17:10:09 [Loqi]
[Christopher Allan Webber] ActivityPub
17:10:19 [rhiaro]
... amy put together the changelog
17:10:23 [rhiaro]
... the changes are non normative
17:10:33 [rhiaro]
... we do have one .. the most major is the dropping mediaupload stuff
17:10:38 [rhiaro]
... but that was marked at risk
17:10:42 [rhiaro]
... so that's not a surprise I think
17:10:57 [tantek]
That counts as a normative change, but we don't have to restart CR because it was marked at risk.
17:11:07 [rhiaro]
... aside from that, we also moved the auth stuff off-spec
17:11:10 [ajordan]
question: I spotted a "(Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.)" changed to "(Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet)." (note the period)
17:11:17 [ajordan]
that seems like a typo but was it intentional?
17:11:20 [rhiaro]
... everything else was things that were pretty minor
17:11:46 [cwebber2]
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues
17:11:51 [rhiaro]
... we had a few issues, they're all non substantive
17:12:05 [rhiaro]
... one I didn't do this morning so it's not in the diff, but I'd like to get it approved
17:12:13 [cwebber2]
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#actor-objects
17:12:43 [rhiaro]
... the likes collection wasn't listed as a property, but is part of the spec
17:12:51 [rhiaro]
... I'm going to add that there, I wanted the group to see it before I did it
17:12:59 [rhiaro]
... The other two remaining open issues
17:12:59 [cwebber2]
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/203
17:13:00 [Loqi]
[jaywink] #203 Linked Data Signatures + public key URI
17:13:06 [rhiaro]
... One is not really affecting things in the spec
17:13:27 [rhiaro]
... Just so everyone knows, this has already been handled, I left it open because we had agreed I'd make specific changes to the wiki page in the CG, so I left it open to remind myself
17:13:34 [cwebber2]
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/260
17:13:35 [Loqi]
[yvolk] #260 Relation between Actors and Users of servers is undefined
17:13:39 [rhiaro]
... The only one left is this long one..
17:13:51 [rhiaro]
... amy and I spent a substantial amount of time. We talked about it a few weeks ago
17:14:03 [rhiaro]
... We resolved that we would clarify that there's not specific mapping of one user to one actor in the spec and wouldn't do anything further
17:14:08 [rhiaro]
... I thougtht hat was going to be it, but the commenter was not satisfied
17:14:29 [rhiaro]
... there's been much further conversation about needing to explain very carefully this concept of 'account' and we spent a lot of itme trying to figure out what they meant
17:14:59 [rhiaro]
... even within the last couple of changes amy and I got in a clear exlpanation that's non-normative that explains how accounts are actors, and can be humans or bots etc. I hoep that satisfies them but I'm not sure
17:15:06 [rhiaro]
... This has gone on for only 50 messages and in circles for a while
17:15:11 [rhiaro]
... We did have a resolution that was incorporated
17:15:35 [rhiaro]
... I'd like to get some group.. if you haven't read it.. well... I think we've done the very best we can to try to capture everything this person has said without adding vocab. Even the commentor agrees on not adding vocab
17:15:44 [tantek]
q?
17:15:47 [tantek]
q+
17:15:52 [rhiaro]
... I'd like the group to approve we close this even if the commentor specifies they're not satisfied, because I don't thinkw e can do better at this point
17:16:03 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
17:16:30 [rhiaro]
tantek: the first question I would ask (I haven't read the issue since the additional messages) is there any way to distill what if any new information was added to the issue since we did a group resolution?
17:17:02 [rhiaro]
tantek: I understand the points before, but I'm trying to understand if there's new information subsequently
17:17:11 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: it switched from talking about users to talkinga bout accounts
17:17:21 [rhiaro]
... there was a lot more clarificationa bout why they thought this was really important
17:17:49 [rhiaro]
... I feel like a lot of it went to discusisng about how accounts in the system are really important to have the domain modelling of, and they also feel that this in some way not specifying is missing
17:19:05 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: Agree with chris. A lot of the comments are rephrasing the same information for clarity. A lot belongs in the CG, and the commentor agreed on some of that too
17:19:56 [rhiaro]
tantek: the reason I ask a question like that is at some point if we're not getting new information we can resolve it in the group and we can note that if it appears the commentor is not satisfied
17:20:03 [rhiaro]
... it should be okay if we've done our due diligence
17:20:16 [rhiaro]
... that being said, my understanding is we don't have anything about account management in any of our specs as far as I know, si that correct?
17:20:38 [rhiaro]
... by account management I mean creating an account, setting your background image, setting up email, etc. We don't model any of that do we?
17:20:47 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: we don't, aside from the most basic detail like your name
17:20:54 [rhiaro]
q+
17:21:05 [rhiaro]
tantek: we have name and image, but that's it. That's abou tthe actor not about the account, I would argue
17:21:27 [rhiaro]
... the way that I would try to resolve this in a productive fashion is saying account management is important and we don't have it in the current spec, it would be a great extension
17:21:32 [rhiaro]
... please help us do that in the CG
17:21:33 [rhiaro]
q?
17:22:22 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: since we moved auth to the CG, that is where account interaction would normally live, so that's something more CG oriented
17:22:26 [eprodrom]
ack rhiaro
17:22:32 [rhiaro]
... that might be what satisfies the commentor
17:23:31 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: we already said in the spec that this stuff is important and should be discussed as an extension in the CG
17:23:50 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: we could resolve that we've done what we can with this and move oveflow to the CG and ask the commentor if they're satisfied and mark it one way or the other
17:24:29 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: Resolve issue #260 as having completed relevant changes to ActivityPub itself, and move additional modeling decisions to SocialCG
17:24:47 [eprodrom]
+1
17:24:48 [cwebber2]
+1
17:24:51 [sandro]
+1
17:24:52 [ajordan]
+1
17:24:56 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
17:25:00 [tantek]
+1
17:25:03 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> but did y'all *read* the relevant changes? :)
17:25:18 [ajordan]
I believe I did
17:25:24 [tantek]
thought we already did them? like they're not ne2
17:25:26 [aaronpk]
the changes were basically s/user/account right?
17:25:26 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> thanks ajordan, appreciated :)
17:25:29 [tantek]
s/ne2/new
17:25:34 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> tantek: we did a bit more, in notes
17:25:36 [ajordan]
:)
17:25:42 [aaronpk]
+1
17:25:46 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: Resolve issue #260 as having completed relevant changes to ActivityPub itself, and move additional modeling decisions to SocialCG
17:25:48 [tantek]
I trust editor's discretion in notes
17:25:55 [ajordan]
I might not have seen the notes, not sure
17:26:47 [tantek]
just as additional info for that issue, note the Account Management issues (partially) documented for Twitter that are likely worth modeling https://indieweb.org/Twitter#Features
17:26:59 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: So the signatures one is not one that touches the spec, and 260, 266 is the only change we'd make since the diff in terms of issuing a new CR
17:27:21 [rhiaro]
... I'd like to propose we publish a new CR with changes from 266
17:27:25 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: Issue new CR of ActivityPub incorporating change proposed in issue #266
17:27:27 [cwebber2]
+1
17:27:37 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
17:27:39 [eprodrom]
+1
17:27:52 [ajordan]
+1
17:27:59 [sandro]
+1 understanding changes are editorial
17:28:21 [aaronpk]
+1
17:28:24 [tantek]
+1
17:29:11 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: any more votes?
17:29:25 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: Issue new CR of ActivityPub incorporating change proposed in issue #266
17:29:39 [tantek]
these are good clarifications
17:30:09 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: this meeting was really for getting this CR out so I think we are ..
17:30:14 [rhiaro]
Topic: WebSub
17:30:24 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: voting deadline is extended to 12 Nov, remind your AC reps
17:30:35 [rhiaro]
Topic: TPAC
17:30:38 [rhiaro]
tantek: anyone going?
17:30:41 [rhiaro]
sandro: looks like I am
17:31:05 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: wrapping up. Thanks everyone!
17:31:12 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: one last thing
17:31:22 [rhiaro]
... would anybody object if I put down amy as an author on the spec?
17:31:35 [eprodrom]
cwebber2 that sounds fine
17:31:40 [rhiaro]
... she's done a tremendous amoutn of work refactoring last year and in closing issues etc, I feel like it's been enough
17:31:50 [tantek]
No objection
17:31:52 [sandro]
+1 rhiaro !
17:31:54 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: unless there are any objections, chris do that
17:32:05 [rhiaro]
... NOW i'm gonna end the meeting
17:32:14 [rhiaro]
tantek: see you at tpac
17:32:26 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
17:32:26 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:32:26 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been rhiaro, aaronpk, eprodrom, ajordan, cwebber, sandro, tantek
17:32:34 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:32:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-social-minutes.html trackbot
17:32:35 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:32:35 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items