18:03:53 RRSAgent has joined #social 18:03:53 logging to https://www.w3.org/2017/12/19-social-irc 18:03:55 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:03:55 Zakim has joined #social 18:03:57 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 18:03:57 Date: 19 December 2017 18:04:00 present+ 18:04:04 present+ 18:04:04 present+ 18:04:07 present+ 18:04:08 eprodrom: csarven left you a message 3 days, 6 hours ago: Is as2.rocks taking a bath? 18:06:23 ben_thatmustbeme: are you on the call? 18:06:27 Zakim, who is here 18:06:27 rhiaro, you need to end that query with '?' 18:06:31 Zakim, who is here? 18:06:31 Present: aaronpk, sandro, rhiaro, eprodrom 18:06:32 On IRC I see RRSAgent, eprodrom, KevinMarks, tantek, rowan, xmpp-social, bwn, KjetilK, trackbot, Loqi, jankusanagi_, cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme, Chocobozzz, dlongley, puckipedia, 18:06:32 ... csarven, aaronpk, jet, sandro, distopico, DenSchub, dlehn, rhiaro, sknebel, ajordan, hadleybeeman, er1n, raucao, saranix, erincandescent, Gargron, melody, mattl, bigbluehat, 18:06:32 ... surinna, bitbear, howl, dwhly, tsyesika, nightpool 18:06:35 tantek: did you call in? 18:06:36 figure it out zakim 18:06:39 oops sorry 18:06:57 calling in oops 18:06:59 yes I think you're chairing today 18:07:02 Attention everyone, last ever SWWG telecon. Roll up roll up, grab popcorn 18:07:20 Not on the call but in irc 18:07:21 eprodrom: can you start chairing and do the minutes approval 18:07:24 be there in a min 18:07:38 tantek: will do 18:07:42 thank yoU! 18:07:46 dialing in now 18:07:53 scribe please? 18:08:08 [ajordan] Omg I completely forgot and just woke up, dialing in 18:08:37 anyone on the phone who can scribe? 18:08:47 Maybe someone whose document has gone to PR already? 18:08:54 present+ 18:09:14 scribe: sandro 18:09:22 scribe: cwebber2 18:09:27 :-) 18:09:33 PROPOSED: Approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-12-05-minutes as the minutes for 05 Dec 2017 teleconference 18:10:04 +1 18:10:29 +1 18:10:31 +1 18:10:33 +1 18:10:52 +1 18:11:32 present+ 18:11:35 RESOLVED: Approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-12-05-minutes as the minutes for 05 Dec 2017 teleconference 18:12:09 yeah, mailing list :-) 18:12:13 eprodrom: this is our last meeting as a group 18:12:18 +1 18:12:49 eprodrom: I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about the main subject of our discussion today which is our note-track documents which we need to approve/disapprove for publication 18:13:09 eprodrom: before we do those I'd like to cover our Rec-track documents and make sure the ones that have not gone out all the way.. 18:13:14 topic: websub 18:13:23 aaronpk: not a lot new since last week which is good 18:13:34 aaronpk: I did actually meet with som Twitch developers yesterday 18:13:53 aaronpk: they finished their websub api, and they were super excited the spec existed and that they could use it as a template for their API 18:14:03 aaronpk: it often answered questions they didn't know they had, a good sign 18:14:13 aaronpk: one aspect of it where I added a slight change to the text 18:14:27 aaronpk: clarifying that hubs may set a default value for ??? seconds 18:14:40 aaronpk: it says the hubs can respect or not, is optional, they hadn't set a default value 18:14:57 aaronpk: if a subscriber does not set a request lease seconds, hub can set a default lease duration 18:15:09 /s/??? seconds/lease seconds/ 18:15:14 s/??? seconds/lease seconds/ 18:15:24 aaronpk: that added confusion for devs so I added it to the spec 18:15:36 aaronpk: hopefully that's the version we'll publish as a Rec 18:15:40 eprodrom: fantastic! 18:15:44 s/for ??? seconds/for lease seconds/ 18:15:52 eprodrom: sandro, anything else to do for websub to go through? 18:16:03 sandro: afaik everything's good, trying to get confirmation 18:16:11 sandro: we're well past the deadline so we're just waiting 18:16:33 eprodrom: I'm not sure if I'm overstating it too much, but of what I think this group has done I think it's the broadest value, something to be proud of 18:16:34 websub++ 18:16:34 websub has 2 karma in this channel (3 overall) 18:16:35 present+ 18:16:45 s/deadline/deadline for publishing in 2017/ 18:16:49 +1 aaronpk ! 18:16:50 eprodrom: on behalf of the group, aaronpk thanks a lot and thanks to you and julien for taking it all the way through 18:16:56 eprodrom: can we move on to activitypub? 18:16:59 chair: tantek 18:17:32 scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme 18:17:42 TOPIC: activitypub 18:18:06 cwebber2: no new issues, no new news, i don't think there is anything to report or discuss, i think its just waiting on steps to REC status 18:18:17 tantek: we are waiting on the PR vote now 18:18:22 ... when does that close? 18:18:33 sandro: Jan 2nd 18:18:47 sandro: it would sure be great if we could get a few more votes on it 18:18:59 tantek: anything we should be concerned about 18:19:07 sandro: nope, only comment being on the coloring 18:19:22 tantek: where did we end on that? 18:19:31 tantek: can you open an issue on that? 18:20:02 that way when the transition request goes through, each change has a documented issue 18:20:15 cwebber2: i don't think we had a resolution 18:20:25 tantek: we came to a consensus, thats worth citing in the issue 18:20:32 cwebber2: i'll deal with it today 18:20:44 tantek: i think that was the only change we made post PR, right? 18:20:47 cwebber2: I think so 18:21:10 sandro: is there anyone else we can get to approach about getting a vote? 18:21:27 ... we really should have added a week or two to the deadline to account for the holidays 18:21:47 q+ 18:22:02 tantek: does anyone in the group think we should REQUEST an extensions on the PR vote deadline. and often that type of request is accepted 18:22:21 ack eprodrom 18:22:25 eprodrom: i just wanted to add my voice to say we extend it say 2 weeks in to january because of the holiday 18:22:39 tantek: does anyone object to requesting we extend the PR vote by 2 weeks? 18:22:48 ... cwebber2 does that sound good to you as editor? 18:22:54 is there any reason we *wouldn't* do this? 18:23:05 cwebber2: yeah, it sounds like its good, i can't imagine any reason why it would be anything but good 18:23:17 tantek: hearing no objections, i'm going to declare consensus on that 18:24:03 ... if for some reason you come up with other editorial fixed, file issues on them and we'll try to process them through github 18:24:19 worst case scenario, i will be available to chair on the 26th if we need to 18:24:32 ... i'm not expecting we will have anything, but if we do, i'll offer that 18:24:40 scribenick: cwebber2 18:24:41 scribenick: cwebber2 18:24:58 topic: JF2 18:25:27 https://dissolve.github.io/jf2/ 18:25:28 ben_thatmustbeme: no updates on JF2, no new issues, no changes since last week... just waiting for people to read it through and see if there are any problems 18:25:57 q? 18:26:08 q+ 18:26:14 ack eprodrom 18:26:33 eprodrom: I wanted to ask on the JF2 we have a number of open issues 18:26:34 note changes section: https://dissolve.github.io/jf2/#changes-from-26-oct-2017-wd-to-this-version 18:26:53 ben_thatmustbeme: for most of them I need to organize them, some of them I discussed offline 18:27:04 ben_thatmustbeme: most of them aren't responded and I need to flag as timeout effectively 18:27:16 yikes yeah sorry again for the long issues 18:27:26 issues: https://github.com/dissolve/jf2/issues 18:27:34 eprodrom: there's definitely a slog to get through some of the comments... long multi-paragraph convos. from a process POV if we publish JF2 as a note today, how will the issues be addressed / get resolved? 18:27:43 eprodrom: that's asking sandro more than that 18:27:52 tantek: good question, that's why we talked about maintenance last time 18:27:57 ah and I've just realized I never responded to the normative one :/ 18:28:04 sandro: I was going to ask eprodrom to clarify, what seems unclear? 18:28:30 eprodrom: if we publish as a note, does that mean we won't resolve these issues? or will we say "ben can resolve issues and make editorial changes over some time period 18:28:31 " 18:28:42 sandro: I don't think there's a way to update the nope unless we have a new WG 18:29:09 surely this is not a thing? 18:29:13 tantek: what we could do is resolve to do is assuming we publish it as a note today, we can resolve to allow editor to make editorial changes and update the note 18:29:26 sandro: we can make requests to publish until the WG is closed 18:29:29 oh okay i thought you meant indefinitely 18:29:38 sandro: until Dec 31st 18:30:02 eprodrom: I assume we'd hand off to the SocialCG any future issues, etc? 18:30:18 sandro: I like the idea of the note somewhere fairly prominent saying "here's where we expect ongoing work to be happening" 18:30:20 eprodrom: right 18:30:38 tantek: so the default thing we discussed last time was to allow people to adjust ED in place 18:30:42 sandro: so note links to ED? 18:30:44 tantek: yes 18:31:00 tantek: any note-track things link to the ED so we can say "here's informal updates" etc 18:31:22 sandro: they don't even need to say that, the top of the document says "here's the ED " 18:31:39 tantek: yeah I think that's fine and provides the flexibility for the editor to choose where they want to work on it 18:31:49 tantek: whether in the socialcg or somewhere else 18:32:08 tantek: once we close the WG we can't publish it as a note, but we can use it as a CG report 18:32:27 q? 18:32:30 tantek: we do have the ED, and as long as the ED indicates "here's the official version at FOO location" 18:32:44 tantek: if there aren't any other questions about JF2 I'd like to propose it published as a note 18:32:55 sandro: include something about publishing over next 10 days? 18:33:05 PROPOSED: Publish jf2 as a NOTE 18:33:33 +1 18:33:36 +1 18:33:36 +1 obviously from me 18:33:38 +1 18:33:39 +1 18:33:41 +1 18:33:43 +1 18:33:47 +1 18:34:09 RESOLVED: Publish jf2 as a NOTE 18:34:24 https://github.com/dissolve/jf2/issues 18:34:39 ben_thatmustbeme: going through issues now, to see which ones have been resolved 18:34:44 ben_thatmustbeme: my finals are done Thursday so I can try to send some PRs, *maybe* before then but definitely after 18:35:00 ben_thatmustbeme: some of them, esp the longer ones from AJ need to be split out into separate issues, some of them have been handled as well 18:35:53 ben_thatmustbeme: I don't see any changes other than minor issues but I think we should split out the minor issues into new issues 18:35:59 ben_thatmustbeme: most of them are working with ajordan I think 18:36:35 ben_thatmustbeme: the only one I can see that would be normative is we discussed with references you have an embedded object beneath the main object you can maybe reference directly in the main object 18:36:56 ben_thatmustbeme: so you can say here it is but I can't guarantee it's correct 18:37:03 https://github.com/dissolve/jf2/issues/11 18:37:03 https://github.com/dissolve/jf2/issues/11 18:37:03 [richardcarls] #11 Example 13: author card should be moved to references property 18:37:04 [richardcarls] #11 Example 13: author card should be moved to references property 18:37:44 ben_thatmustbeme: when it a requirement that it must be a reference... I'm very hesitant because people are using it as-is 18:38:26 q+ 18:38:51 tantek: one labels we have on our issues is postpone to future version, I've been saying that for this is out of what can be done 18:39:08 ben_thatmustbeme: it's mostly for uniformity 18:39:23 ben_thatmustbeme: that's the only real difference 18:39:29 ack ajordan 18:39:43 my head is so cloudy right now, still getting over sickness 18:39:59 ajordan: seems like what we're really discussing here is whether or not the spec can be more uniform or whether we want to have... it's really a minor nit, it doesn't matter a ton 18:40:17 ajordan: historically I'm not sure we've ever decided to break implementations, whatever 18:40:37 ben_thatmustbeme: hope you feel better. I'm just getting sick myself :/ 18:40:44 tantek: alright, a couple of options, we could reject the request saying it would break existing implementations, or propose ??? 18:40:58 ben_thatmustbeme: my preference is to reject it to say it'll break code 18:41:18 LOUD TYPING 18:41:31 PROPOSED: Resolve jf2 issue 11 with reject because it will break existing impls. 18:41:32 +1 18:41:40 eprodrom: the staple of this group 18:41:58 +1 18:42:00 +1 18:42:00 +1 18:42:14 +0 <- not breaking things is good but I don't know what's going on ;) 18:42:23 same as cwebber 18:42:41 RESOLVED: Resolve jf2 issue 11 with reject because it will break existing impls. 18:43:29 !meme I have no idea what I'm doing 18:43:29 http://meme.loqi.me/m/4rz11vbN.jpg 18:43:36 ben_thatmustbeme: I think most are non-normative documentation or are long-winding convos best to postpone 18:44:04 ahaha 18:44:45 agreed with sandro 18:45:08 tantek: a volunteer for updates to jf2 notes? 18:45:11 I can review 18:45:24 I have a vested interest in jf2 :) 18:46:33 PROPOSED: Allow editor to make non-normative changes to jf2 per issues, and with reviewer aaronpk approval (in issues), publish updated jf2 NOTEs until group close. 18:46:56 +1 18:47:04 +1 18:47:15 +1 18:47:17 +1 18:47:30 +1 18:47:38 q? 18:47:51 +1 18:47:57 +1 18:47:58 RESOLVED: Allow editor to make non-normative changes to jf2 per issues, and with reviewer aaronpk approval (in issues), publish updated jf2 NOTEs until group close. 18:48:00 +1 18:48:35 topic: PTD 18:49:13 tantek: so I have updated PTD with resolutions to issues I thought were appropriate for the general scope of changes the group has been moving forward with 18:49:14 eprodrom has changed the topic to: SocialWG https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-12-19, logs: https://chat.indieweb.org/social || SocialCG https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2017-12-20 18:49:26 tantek: I'll share the url.... *share* 18:49:26 https://tantek.github.io/post-type-discovery/index-src.html 18:49:45 https://tantek.github.io/post-type-discovery/index-src.html#change-log 18:50:17 tantek: there are two "to this version"s in the changelog 18:50:24 https://github.com/tantek/post-type-discovery/issues 18:50:38 [rhiaro] #9 Use AS2 specific language for post types 18:50:58 tantek: there are a handful of issues waiting for commenter, some have been postponed / edited 18:51:50 eprodrom: a lot of them seem future development of PTD, do any seem normative for this version of PTD 18:52:21 tantek: probably the biggest normative changes are one change to add event type discovery because we had numerous implementations of that, and the other normative change is I added the as2 equivalents table 18:52:36 tantek: documenting how to convert to AS2 18:53:01 tantek: that's probably the biggest normative change requested per issue 9 and 15... was waiting for list of events 18:53:05 tantek: linked to all those 18:53:23 It's Announce 18:53:24 Announce 18:53:28 lol 18:53:29 tantek: that all went fine but I had one challenge with that... I could not find the AS2 equivalent to a repost 18:53:52 q+ to request 30 more minutes for the call because we still have two specs to get to 18:54:12 ack aaronpk 18:54:12 aaronpk, you wanted to request 30 more minutes for the call because we still have two specs to get to 18:54:20 i'm stuck on mute 18:54:22 that is all 18:55:25 cdchapman has joined #social 18:56:39 q? 18:57:16 eprodrom: aside from these items do you feel this is ready to go to Note as editor? 18:57:31 PROPOSED: publish Post Type Discovery ED as a Note 18:57:34 +1 18:57:37 +1 18:57:40 +1 18:57:41 +1 18:57:44 +1 18:57:51 +1 18:57:56 +1 18:58:10 q+ to ask about Note publishing process, but we should probably vote on extending first 18:58:19 RESOLVED: publish Post Type Discovery ED as a Note 18:58:52 tantek: let's extend for 30 additional minutes 18:59:01 eprodrom: anything left to do on PTD? 18:59:32 tantek: potential non-normative issues, maybe I can do before the end of the group 18:59:33 tantek: is the intention to keep https://tantek.github.io/post-type-discovery/index-src.html#implementations? 18:59:48 definitely 19:00:24 https://github.com/tantek/post-type-discovery/issues/34 done 19:00:24 [strugee] #34 Move Implementations section to the W3C wiki 19:00:36 eprodrom: if we're there we should probably round it up and move on to the next doc, thanks for the work you've done on this tantek 19:01:01 i can review 19:01:03 tantek: we need a volunteer to review? 19:02:13 PROPOSED: Allow editor to make non-normative changes to PTD per issues, and with reviewer ben_thatmustbeme approval (in issues), publish updated PTD NOTEs until group close. 19:02:18 did i get that right? 19:02:50 +1 19:02:52 +1 19:02:53 +1 19:02:56 +1 19:02:56 +1 19:03:10 +1 19:03:12 +1 19:03:46 RESOLVED: Allow editor to make non-normative changes to PTD per issues, and with reviewer ben_thatmustbeme approval (in issues), publish updated PTD NOTEs until group close. 19:04:02 I'm queued 19:04:17 present- 19:04:19 ack ajordan 19:04:19 ajordan, you wanted to ask about Note publishing process, but we should probably vote on extending first 19:05:24 eprodrom: I don't think notes have the same level of IP scrutiny that rec-draft documents have 19:05:31 tantek: less than WD in fact 19:06:07 https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/#changes-since-2017-05-04 19:06:17 topic: Social Web Protocols 19:06:32 rhiaro: did a bunch of updates, I think it's ready to publish 19:06:34 present+ 19:06:58 present+ 19:07:08 q? 19:07:31 tantek: are there any particular major changes which you think the group should look at? 19:08:13 rhiaro: profile section is mostly new, it's not big... also added authentication next ot the bit 19:08:22 tantek: profile section and authentication... ok 19:09:24 tantek: anyone have any questions regarding the status of SWP/ 19:09:25 ? 19:09:30 q? 19:09:40 https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/issues 19:10:38 rhiaro: I think I'm going to close this one because a feature matrix would be huge and complicated, and the spec has changed a lot 19:10:49 PROPOSED: Resolve SWP issue 17 as wont fix -- too much work 19:11:09 +1 19:11:09 +1 19:11:10 +1 19:11:17 +1 19:11:25 wait 19:11:29 +1 19:11:30 so what happens to the existing matrix? 19:11:45 oh we're just resolving not to expand it basically? 19:11:51 +1 19:11:55 RESOLVED: Resolve SWP issue 17 as wont fix -- too much work 19:12:15 !meme such echo 19:12:15 http://meme.loqi.me/m/4rzyLrtx.jpg 19:12:28 PROPOSED: Publish update to SWP as a NOTE with current editor's draft. https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/ 19:12:31 +1 19:12:36 +1 19:12:43 wait 19:12:45 +1 19:12:47 what about the open PRs 19:13:40 https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/pulls 19:14:28 tantek: do the PRs look good to you? 19:14:32 rhiaro: yes, looks fine 19:14:52 https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/issues/56 19:14:53 [aaronpk] #56 Reference key related specs 19:15:46 tantek: is this an issue that can be resolved after the version we publish today? 19:16:00 aaronpk: not if it gets to note 19:16:19 s/not if it gets to note/not if it should get into this same note 19:17:18 aaronpk, can we do #58 after we publish today? 19:17:25 actually, aaronpk & rhiaro? 19:17:46 rhiaro: microformats is referenced throughout the document but I can add it to that section 19:18:13 rhiaro: oauth and indieauth I think maybe don't go as much on that list, I'll add microformats 19:18:21 aaronpk: I'd accept that 19:18:40 tantek: did you say you have a resolution on #56 you'd commit? 19:18:44 s/oauth and indieauth I think maybe don't/oauth I think maybe doesn't/ 19:18:47 correction: indieauth is already there 19:18:51 PROPOSED: Publish update to SWP as a NOTE with current editor's draft https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/ with current pull requests https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/pulls and editor's resolution to issue #56 19:19:04 +1 19:19:07 +1 19:19:09 +1 19:19:11 +1 19:19:12 +1 19:19:16 +1 19:19:20 +1 19:19:31 RESOLVED: Publish update to SWP as a NOTE with current editor's draft https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/ with current pull requests https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/pulls and editor's resolution to issue #56 19:20:19 rhiaro++ 19:20:19 rhiaro has 167 karma in this channel (289 overall) 19:21:25 rhiaro: re: other issues, but I have a bunch of travel plans for the end of the month 19:22:33 I sent a patch with literally a single character change 19:22:38 it's not my fault! 19:24:00 aaronpk: where did you link it? 19:24:11 rhiaro: indieweb wiki, in bridging 19:24:20 aaronpk: why not link to wiki in related specifications section 19:24:43 rhiaro: sure 19:25:17 Update to RESOLVED - include resolution to #58 per consensus 19:25:36 tantek: any other issues that need to be resolved for SWP since rhiaro says no updates after today? 19:25:49 can the CG take over SWP if rhiaro doesn't want to update it further? 19:25:49 That makes sense 19:26:44 tantek: socialcg could do updates, but strongly suggest working with the editor 19:26:57 ajordan: I didn't meant is the CG allowed to but would rhiaro mind 19:27:05 tantek: we can deal with that later in the CG 19:27:11 topic: indieauth 19:27:46 aaronpk: a few issues filed, reviewed document, they're addressed... good news is there's activity on it and it's better than it was 2 weeks ago 19:27:55 s/meant/mean/ 19:27:59 https://indieauth.net/spec/ 19:28:01 [Aaron Parecki] IndieAuth 19:28:06 q+ 19:28:17 ack eprodrom 19:28:39 eprodrom: glad to see there's been discussion/review of indieauth, seeing a number of issues/resolutions makes me more confidence in it as a note 19:28:55 eprodrom: anything that might keep this from being published? 19:29:20 aaronpk: I believe everything in here have been implemented 19:29:33 eprodrom: some placeholders for test suite etc, but that's probably fine for note track? 19:29:45 Issues link FWIW: https://github.com/indieweb/indieauth.net/issues 19:30:09 aaronpk: this is what people are using with micropub right now, it links to the other specs for future work / issues 19:30:35 q? 19:30:40 tantek: any other questions about indieauth? 19:31:05 tantek: sandro, do we need to do anything special to publish a note for the first time? 19:31:23 sandro: I don't think so, the process is the same, which is we need permission for Phillipe, which we need for notes too 19:32:00 tantek: can I ask you to ask phillipe? 19:32:11 sandro: we probably want to wait for all these Dec 31st changes, right? 19:33:12 q? 19:33:24 tantek: if there are no other questions for indieauth, let's go to a proposal 19:33:35 RESOLVED: Publish IndieAuth note from https://indieauth.net/spec/ 19:33:37 [Aaron Parecki] IndieAuth 19:33:44 oops 19:33:47 s/RESOLVED/PROPOSED 19:33:54 +1 19:33:56 +0.5 19:33:59 +1 19:34:01 PROPOSED: Publish IndieAuth note from https://indieauth.net/spec/ 19:34:02 [Aaron Parecki] IndieAuth 19:34:04 +1 19:34:05 +0 19:34:10 +1 19:34:15 +1 19:34:16 +0.5 19:34:35 +a banana 19:34:56 +0.5 19:35:10 RESOLVED: Publish IndieAuth note from https://indieauth.net/spec/ 19:35:11 [Aaron Parecki] IndieAuth 19:35:23 q+ 19:35:28 RRSAgent, pointer? 19:35:28 See https://www.w3.org/2017/12/19-social-irc#T19-35-28 19:35:35 ack cwebber2 19:35:38 ack c 19:36:14 +1 19:36:34 congrats to all \o/ 19:36:40 🎉 19:36:48 socialwg++ 19:36:48