17:00:50 RRSAgent has joined #social 17:00:50 logging to https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-social-irc 17:00:52 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:00:52 Zakim has joined #social 17:00:54 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:00:54 Date: 31 October 2017 17:00:55 oh I should dial in eh 17:01:06 I'll be on in 2min 17:01:07 present+ 17:01:09 present+ 17:01:12 present+ 17:01:37 scribenick: rhiaro 17:01:39 present+ 17:01:44 IRC only for a bit 17:01:53 ajordan, watch for the vote! 17:02:01 eprodrom: of course :) 17:02:39 roll up roll up, SWWG meeting starting in T-3 minutes 17:04:04 sandro, are you joining us? 17:04:24 yes sorry 17:04:37 present+ 17:05:49 present+ 17:06:11 scribenick: rhiaro 17:06:17 chairnick: eprodrom 17:06:25 . 17:06:35 tantek has joined #social 17:06:42 TOPIC: approval of minutes 2017-10-24 17:06:46 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-10-24-minutes 17:07:02 PROPOSED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-10-24-minutes as minutes for 24 Oct 2017 meeting 17:07:06 +1 17:07:21 +1 17:07:22 +1 17:07:24 +1 17:07:41 +1 17:07:58 +1 17:08:02 Zakim, who is here? 17:08:02 Present: rhiaro, aaronpk, eprodrom, ajordan, cwebber, sandro 17:08:04 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 ... erincandescent, wilkie, jet, rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, Gargron, csarven, sknebel, melody, ajordan, mattl, bigbluehat, surinna, KjetilK, bitbear, howl, dwhly, tsyesika, 17:08:04 ... astronouth7303, sandro, nightpool, trackbot, puckipedia 17:08:46 RESOLVED: approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-10-24-minutes as minutes for 24 Oct 2017 meeting 17:09:26 TOPIC: ActivityPub 17:09:35 present+ 17:09:41 eprodrom: cwebber2, get us started? 17:10:02 cwebber2: sandro put together a diff of changes since the last CR 17:10:06 https://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/diff/activitypub/20170907-20171030.html 17:10:07 https://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/diff/activitypub/20170907-20171030.html 17:10:08 [Christopher Allan Webber] ActivityPub 17:10:09 [Christopher Allan Webber] ActivityPub 17:10:19 ... amy put together the changelog 17:10:23 ... the changes are non normative 17:10:33 ... we do have one .. the most major is the dropping mediaupload stuff 17:10:38 ... but that was marked at risk 17:10:42 ... so that's not a surprise I think 17:10:57 That counts as a normative change, but we don't have to restart CR because it was marked at risk. 17:11:07 ... aside from that, we also moved the auth stuff off-spec 17:11:10 question: I spotted a "(Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.)" changed to "(Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet)." (note the period) 17:11:17 that seems like a typo but was it intentional? 17:11:20 ... everything else was things that were pretty minor 17:11:46 https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues 17:11:51 ... we had a few issues, they're all non substantive 17:12:05 ... 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 https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#actor-objects 17:12:43 ... the likes collection wasn't listed as a property, but is part of the spec 17:12:51 ... I'm going to add that there, I wanted the group to see it before I did it 17:12:59 ... The other two remaining open issues 17:12:59 https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/203 17:13:00 [jaywink] #203 Linked Data Signatures + public key URI 17:13:06 ... One is not really affecting things in the spec 17:13:27 ... 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 https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/260 17:13:35 [yvolk] #260 Relation between Actors and Users of servers is undefined 17:13:39 ... The only one left is this long one.. 17:13:51 ... amy and I spent a substantial amount of time. We talked about it a few weeks ago 17:14:03 ... 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 ... I thougtht hat was going to be it, but the commenter was not satisfied 17:14:29 ... 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 ... 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 ... This has gone on for only 50 messages and in circles for a while 17:15:11 ... We did have a resolution that was incorporated 17:15:35 ... 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 q? 17:15:47 q+ 17:15:52 ... 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 ack tantek 17:16:30 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 tantek: I understand the points before, but I'm trying to understand if there's new information subsequently 17:17:11 cwebber2: it switched from talking about users to talkinga bout accounts 17:17:21 ... there was a lot more clarificationa bout why they thought this was really important 17:17:49 ... 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: 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 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 ... it should be okay if we've done our due diligence 17:20:16 ... 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 ... 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 cwebber2: we don't, aside from the most basic detail like your name 17:20:54 q+ 17:21:05 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 ... 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 ... please help us do that in the CG 17:21:33 q? 17:22:22 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 ack rhiaro 17:22:32 ... that might be what satisfies the commentor 17:23:31 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 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 PROPOSED: Resolve issue #260 as having completed relevant changes to ActivityPub itself, and move additional modeling decisions to SocialCG 17:24:47 +1 17:24:48 +1 17:24:51 +1 17:24:52 +1 17:24:56 +1 17:25:00 +1 17:25:03 but did y'all *read* the relevant changes? :) 17:25:18 I believe I did 17:25:24 thought we already did them? like they're not ne2 17:25:26 the changes were basically s/user/account right? 17:25:26 thanks ajordan, appreciated :) 17:25:29 s/ne2/new 17:25:34 tantek: we did a bit more, in notes 17:25:36 :) 17:25:42 +1 17:25:46 RESOLVED: Resolve issue #260 as having completed relevant changes to ActivityPub itself, and move additional modeling decisions to SocialCG 17:25:48 I trust editor's discretion in notes 17:25:55 I might not have seen the notes, not sure 17:26:47 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 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 ... I'd like to propose we publish a new CR with changes from 266 17:27:25 PROPOSED: Issue new CR of ActivityPub incorporating change proposed in issue #266 17:27:27 +1 17:27:37 +1 17:27:39 +1 17:27:52 +1 17:27:59 +1 understanding changes are editorial 17:28:21 +1 17:28:24 +1 17:29:11 eprodrom: any more votes? 17:29:25 RESOLVED: Issue new CR of ActivityPub incorporating change proposed in issue #266 17:29:39 these are good clarifications 17:30:09 eprodrom: this meeting was really for getting this CR out so I think we are .. 17:30:14 Topic: WebSub 17:30:24 eprodrom: voting deadline is extended to 12 Nov, remind your AC reps 17:30:35 Topic: TPAC 17:30:38 tantek: anyone going? 17:30:41 sandro: looks like I am 17:31:05 eprodrom: wrapping up. Thanks everyone! 17:31:12 cwebber2: one last thing 17:31:22 ... would anybody object if I put down amy as an author on the spec? 17:31:35 cwebber2 that sounds fine 17:31:40 ... 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 No objection 17:31:52 +1 rhiaro ! 17:31:54 eprodrom: unless there are any objections, chris do that 17:32:05 ... NOW i'm gonna end the meeting 17:32:14 tantek: see you at tpac 17:32:26 trackbot, end meeting 17:32:26 Zakim, list attendees 17:32:26 As of this point the attendees have been rhiaro, aaronpk, eprodrom, ajordan, cwebber, sandro, tantek 17:32:34 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:32:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2017/10/31-social-minutes.html trackbot 17:32:35 RRSAgent, bye 17:32:35 I see no action items