16:07:01 RRSAgent has joined #social 16:07:01 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/12/07-social-irc 16:07:06 Zakim, this is mumble on dustycloud.org / port 64738 / password “goblincamp” 16:07:06 got it, cwebber2 16:07:14 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:07:14 Zakim, make logs public 16:07:14 Meeting: Social CG Telecon 16:07:14 I don't understand 'make logs public', cwebber2 16:07:33 Meeting: Social CG Telecon 16:07:47 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:08:04 chair: nightpool 16:08:08 scribenick: cwebber2 16:08:29 https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/12-7-socialcg-telecon/339 16:10:19 topic: introductions 16:10:29 cwebber2: I'm activitypub co-editor and socialcg co-chair 16:10:44 nightpool: I'm a mstodon developer and socialcg co-chair 16:10:55 sl007: I work on Redactor, an ActivityPub CMS 16:11:06 topic: Goals and roadmap for the SocialCG in 2020 16:11:19 nightpool: I wanted to get an interest check for what work the socialcg can do in 2020 16:11:25 q+ 16:11:32 ack cwebber 16:11:49 q+ 16:12:02 cwebber: I think the work on how to integration beear tokens an capabilities and stuff like that is of interest 16:12:32 cwebber: I would be really interested to see what the wider fediverse would like to prioritize. We have a smaller set of people at this meeting, but the work on protocol interation is of high interest to me 16:12:54 sl007: I agree with cwebber about ocappub / bearer tokens / etc. I'd like to improve the onboarding experience, especially with main activitypub.rocks page 16:13:12 sl007: I hoped hellekin would be here, but I could read the post about activitypub at offdem 16:13:24 ack sl007 16:13:28 ack sl 16:14:09 nightpool: I definitely think that we need some sort of input from the wider fediverse here, would be interested in how we can do that... a survey, or? 16:14:14 q+ 16:14:22 ack cwebber2 (IRC) 16:14:32 ack cwebber 16:15:35 q+ 16:15:51 ack sl 16:15:51 ack sl 16:16:32 cwebber: Surveys are useful, but we also need people to work on priorities, so having a long backlog doesn't help if we don't also pull in people to work on those things 16:16:32 sl007: I mentioned the post by rigel where Chris already answered some things on socialhub, some things were repeated on the forum, for example scmittlauch (sp?) to link things on the activitypub.rocks page, and top-bar links on there 16:16:43 sl007: part of the question is, who can edit the main page? 16:16:51 sl007: I can see also a demonstration, and he was already working on that 16:18:02 nightpool: yes, I guess I'm not exactly sure how to answer that in the context of this discussion, but I definitely think improving activitypub.rocks is important; there's a couple of different avenues of open-ended "what should be on there" and individual getting-things-on-there. While I think it's good to keep talking about this about what to add to the page, it's a bit early to make concrete specific changes 16:18:03 q+ 16:18:18 ack cwebber 16:21:17 cwebber: I'm looking at the demo site right now (https://rigelk.gitlab.io/activitypub.rocks) and it looks pretty good, and I think a lot of the stuff can be handled pretty easily (the visual cleanup, linking to socialhub.activitypub.rocks, including some videos). There are a couple of more controversial/open questions about guides and what we put in the "for users" section. 16:21:52 cwebber: I think those sections are more tricky and the community needs to discuss that. And the user page is also tricky, because the implementations we prioritize could be a source of conflict. 16:22:15 cwebber: do you have experience on that to add, nightpool? 16:22:28 q? 16:23:00 nightpool: yeah... the Join Mastodon has gone through a few different changes in terms of how we source them, we initially just sourced them from the crawler, recently there's a new standard they have to adhere to 16:23:34 nightpool: there's an "instance covenant" that lays out a baseline about what needs to be included on the page. so instances that agree to that can be added. a question to me is "who is the main use case for the for users page"? 16:24:05 nightpool: are we trying to promote the visibility of implementations? A more aspirational picture of what's possible? What's the high level goal, where do we see that fitting into the current page which is very implementor focused 16:24:27 nightpool: I definitely think... it's good to change that, but I want to think about what that means 16:24:44 q+ 16:25:04 ack cwebber 16:25:08 ack cwebber 16:25:43 cwebber: should we move this discussion to the socialhub forum? 16:25:47 nightpool: I think that makes sense 16:27:21 cwebber: i don't think we need a resolution on this, let's just move this conversation there if there aren't any objections. 16:28:05 nightpool: what's the specific, practical end-goal of those discussions? something to propose to the group? 16:28:07 cwebber: topic 1: Should activitypub.rocks link to a guide that isn't the speicfication, and if so, what? 16:28:29 cwebber: topic 2: Should activitypub.rocks give recommendations to users on software / instances to start using? 16:28:52 q+ 16:29:13 ack sl 16:29:24 cwebber: I think maybe it makes more sense to not recommend instances but just recommend software, the software cand recommend their own implementations 16:29:58 sl007: we could link to https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/c/software 16:30:12 nightpool: yes but let's move this discussion to the forum 16:30:36 nightpool: I think if we think these visual changes are easier to make, let's set a goal. I can take this on as an action item, or you can cwebber2? 16:30:46 nightpool: do you think we can get them made before the next emeting? 16:31:24 cwebber2: I can try to get them done by today, if I can't, it won't happen by the next meeting 16:31:51 nightpool: ok, I can try to see how to get it running 16:32:40 cwebber2: I can give some instructions off-meeting 16:32:52 nightpool: anything else if we're popping the stack upwards 16:32:59 nightpool: any other thoughts on 2020? 16:33:03 q+ 16:33:03 q+ 16:33:11 ack cwebber 16:34:12 cwebber: how to keep engagement in these meetings? 16:34:35 cwebber: we've been really spiky with engagement in this meeting, should we set a goal on that / do people have thoughts on how to keep the drumbeat going? 16:34:56 nightpool: I think that's important... let me collect my thoughts 16:34:56 ack sl 16:35:36 sl007: I just wanted to mention the FOSSDEM / OFFDEM thing again, it's just this one post in the socialhub forum in it so far, but nobody replied to hellekin. After organizing apconf I can't organize it on my own. If we want to be with activitypub at either of them, there needs to be some other people 16:35:42 q+ 16:36:17 sl007: there is a dedicated room where we can have a dedicated conference at OFFDEM, there's an opportunity not seen at FOSDEM not normally seen in the tech meeting of FOSDEM 16:36:34 nightpool: great, do you think about how that ties in with (bi)weekly meetings? 16:36:44 sl007: I'm not sure, maybe we should wait until hellekin is in the meeting 16:37:24 nightpool: one other thing to mention quickly, then we can set this down for now, the post you made on socialhub on offdem is only visible to people in a certain category... it's only visible to people who have made interest in FOSDEM, maybe we can make it more public? 16:37:34 sl007: yes I'll point that out to hellekin 16:38:27 nightpool: yeah I think this meeting tends to get a lot of interest when people have things they want to discuss. Capturing that and making progress on them will make a difference. kaniini mentioned that these meetings don't tie in as well into the issue tracker. we can mention these things on the issue tracker / telecon 16:38:31 q? 16:38:43 ack cwebber2 (IRC) 16:38:52 ack cwebber 16:40:29 cwebber: two things. first about the issue tracker / forum threads, I think it makes sense to mention that, and there's two directions that can flow. One is mentioning these meetings on those issues, and the other is getting those issues onto the meeting agenda. A lot of our open issues have been pretty stagnant, and we can work to get resolution on them and walk through them in this meeting. 16:40:33 q+ 16:41:57 nightpool: that's a good point, there's two categories of issues, one is to get clarification on the spec. sometimes those move to normative / non-normative spec changes. Making a list of those and going through them on the meetings can be useful especially when they're low hanging fruit, and may give us forward momentum. The second is the broader issues we keep coming back to: in-page social activity, restricting replying, etc. 16:41:57 It's not as clear to me whether it's as useful to do so in the meetings 16:43:23 cwebber: right, is there a meaningful way to gauge progress vs. layering coats of paint on the bikeshed. If there isn't a lot of momentum being made, do people really have something new to say and if there isn't something new, we should move things further back on the queue 16:44:01 nightpool: yeah, if we do triage maybe we can figure that out better, at least if we do that we can get to the state of knowing what they are 16:44:06 q? 16:45:19 https://emacsconf.org/2019/ 16:45:24 https://emacsconf.org/2019/videos 16:46:18 cwebber: about conferences—personally, i'm not traveling next year. Are there ways we can still do conference-like things that still allows people who don't travel to attend? For example, the emacs conference this year happened entirely online using free software, using jitsi meet for online live streaming. Is that something worth exploring? 16:46:39 q+ 16:47:01 ack cwebber 16:47:19 cwebber: There's a lot of value in meeting in person, but there are a lot of costs too. A lot of people got a lot of value out of the recent ActivityConf, but a lot of others weren't able to attend. Is an econference thing something people are interested in doing? 16:47:23 ack sl 16:47:36 sl007: cwebber you mentioned the barcelona thing, is there any news on that one? 16:47:57 cwebber: I don't know of anything about the barcelona event 16:48:05 sl007: if this is not happening I would go for the virtual conference 16:48:27 nightpool: I think a virtual conference would be great. Making a good decision on that now so we could give people on that lead time would be great, maybe around this summer? 16:48:28 q+ 16:48:35 ack cwbber 16:48:39 ack cwebber 16:50:00 If it's virtual, then, I might even actually try and be there? That would be great. Not sure how much I can contribute not being a developer, but ... we'll see. 16:50:51 cwebber2: the person who ran the emacs conference, which I thought went great, offered to help guide us in running one 16:50:56 https://emacsconf.org/2019/videos 16:51:20 nightpool: yes we should put it on the forum but be clear that it's tentative, not say we're completely committed yet, we're still exploring it but gathering feedback 16:51:41 +1 16:52:15 Do you have an estimation of costs for a emacscon style econference? 16:53:24 cwebber: I don't have any estimation on the costs, but I will ask. My guess is that the costs are extremely negligable, they did the streaming off of jitsi meet and put up the recordings on peertube and another mirror. The main costs are probably going to be time and volunteer effort, but I'm definitely going to reach out and ask 16:54:59 action item: nightpool to create the socialhub thread, and chris to talk to bandali, who ran emacsconf, and follow up on the thread. 16:55:21 q+ 16:55:33 ack cwebber 16:56:03 cwebber: just wanted to say congrats on doing a great job chairing your first socialcg meeting :) 16:56:12 to nightpool /me applause applause applause 16:56:27 What do you guys need and I will help out. I just got a new server and right now she needs stuff to do, so bring it on. 16:56:48 nightpool: I think the final topic can be deferred for this meeting (content and plain text stuff) doesn't have the interested parties so we'll do that next time 16:56:59 cambridgeport90[m]: cool thanks :) 16:57:17 Zakim, bye 16:57:17 Zakim has left #social 16:57:23 RRSAgent, create minuttes 16:57:23 I'm logging. I don't understand 'create minuttes', cwebber2. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:57:25 s/do that next time/move that discussion back to the forums and bring it back here when there's more progress to talk about/ 16:57:26 RRSAgent, create minutes 16:57:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/12/07-social-minutes.html cwebber2 16:57:32 RRSAgent, bye 16:57:32 I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2019/12/07-social-actions.rdf : 16:57:32 ACTION: item to nightpool to create the socialhub thread, and chris to talk to bandali, who ran emacsconf, and follow up on the thread. [1] 16:57:32 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/12/07-social-irc#T16-54-59