IRC log of social on 2023-09-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:33:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
07:33:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
07:33:04 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
07:33:05 [tantek]
07:33:05 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), tantek
07:33:06 [btsavage]
present+ btsavage
07:33:07 [eprodrom]
07:33:07 [plh]
plh has joined #social
07:33:11 [bkardell_]
07:33:17 [dka]
present+ Dan_Appelquist
07:33:23 [rhiaro]
07:33:23 [tantek]
meeting: Social Web Incubation Community Group
07:33:56 [rhiaro]
07:33:56 [cwilso]
07:33:56 [cpn]
cpn has joined #social
07:33:56 [tantek]
chair: eprodrom
07:33:56 [cpn]
present+ Chris_Needham
07:34:00 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: this is the first in person meeting we've had since the CG started. Thanks everyone for being here
07:34:12 [rhiaro]
... dmitri and james our regular chairs are not available, so I'm going to chair
07:34:25 [rhiaro]
... reliving old glories
07:34:40 [rhiaro]
... and I have some fine grained questions I'd like to work on
07:34:43 [plh]
07:35:28 [rhiaro]
... our agenda is going to be very focussed on existing specs
07:35:28 [rhiaro]
... I shared an agenda on the mailing list this morning
07:35:44 [tantek]
07:35:45 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: extension policy
07:35:54 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: this remains an open issue, there's a draft extension policy to discuss
07:36:02 [angelo]
angelo has joined #social
07:36:04 [rhiaro]
... and there a number of issues in the repo which need input from the group
07:36:10 [rhiaro]
... to me they seem relatively minor, editorial issues
07:36:25 [rhiaro]
... but changes to the errata are up for the group to discuss
07:36:35 [rhiaro]
... any additional agenda items?
07:36:47 [rhiaro]
s/TOPIC/extension policy/
07:36:49 [tantek]
07:36:51 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: intros
07:37:18 [rhiaro]
dka: Dan Applequist, cochair of the TAG, and one of the original chairs of the social web incubator group way back when before social web was cool
07:37:39 [rhiaro]
... what's the current status of .. there's been a lot of talk on the fediverse about the need to recharter the WG. What's the status?
07:37:47 [tantek]
Agenda+ group status and rechartering
07:37:50 [rhiaro]
... Curious from a W3C process perspective, and as a denizen of the fediverse
07:37:57 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: It has changed significantly in the last 10 minutes
07:38:09 [rhiaro]
tantek: queued for the agenda
07:38:43 [pfefferle]
pfefferle has joined #social
07:38:47 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: we can move this up in the agenda
07:38:54 [rhiaro]
... any other topics?
07:39:20 [pfefferle]
pfefferle has joined #social
07:39:45 [rhiaro]
tantek: relatedly, I'd like to talk about possible rechartering as well, specifically in scope of a bunch of the specs we have produced have advanced, had adoption and patches and fixes and gained critical mass. We've also seen several other protocol stacks emerge, I think there's an opportunity for bridging and enhancing interop across those stacks
07:39:52 [rhiaro]
... that's a proposed agenda item
07:40:09 [tantek]
Agenda+ recharter for updated specs and new protocol stacks interop:
07:40:14 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
07:40:27 [Loqi_]
[preview] [Tantek Çelik] going to the #SocialWeb CG meeting @W3C #w3cTPAC tomorrow (2023-09-12) at 09:30 CEST.
07:40:27 [Loqi_]
Looking forward to seeing ( @evanpro) and many others!
07:40:27 [Loqi_]
So many advances in #ActivityPub, #Webmention, Micropub, #IndieAuth etc. that it...
07:41:16 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: reminder that we do have two breakouts tomorrow about data portability, and interop and testing
07:41:16 [rhiaro]
... Any other open questions?
07:41:16 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: extension policy
07:41:40 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: background. When we originally created ActivityStreams Core and Vocab documents we included a section on extensibility
07:41:51 [rhiaro]
... the section covers the technical aspects, and somewhat the process aspects
07:42:02 [rhiaro]
... suggesting we maintain a registry of well known extensions to the activitystreams vocab
07:42:13 [rhiaro]
... and also that we have a process for including those extensions into the context document for AS2 itself
07:42:49 [rhiaro]
... Assuming some understanding of JSON-LD in this case
07:42:49 [rhiaro]
... you can import and reuse other schemas within the context
07:42:57 [rhiaro]
... we do that already with AS2 for a couple of different vocabs, and we said we'd have a mechanism for that in the future, but we deferred on creating that process
07:43:02 [pfefferle]
there is already a community process:
07:43:12 [rhiaro]
... we've had two (I think?) major additions to the AS2 context since we finished the REC
07:43:27 [rhiaro]
... the first was including the activitypub specific vocabularly and the second was addnig the alsoknownas from the did vocabularly
07:43:41 [rhiaro]
... during this time AP has been actively used and developed on the social web, and consequently there are a number of different extensions out in the world
07:44:24 [rhiaro]
... the idea is having a structured process for including those vocabularies within the activitystreams context doc to make it easier for developers to just use one context
07:44:24 [pfefferle]
tantek I already joined
07:44:24 [rhiaro]
... Any questions about the goals of this discussion?
07:44:31 [miriam]
miriam has joined #social
07:44:34 [rhiaro]
dka: can you give me an example of a user need serviced by an extension so I have more context?
07:45:14 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: common use case on the social web - playing games across the network. Eg. words with friends across the social network using your identity, being able to make guesses at words etc. Being able to create an extension that wasn't built into activitystreams at the time that supports the new functionality in a new way
07:45:40 [miriam]
07:46:08 [pfefferle]
07:46:16 [mro]
mro has joined #social
07:46:16 [dka]
07:46:20 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
07:46:27 [eprodrom]
07:46:36 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: this is our namespace doc for activitystreams
07:46:53 [tantek]
q+ pfefferle to note there is already a community process:
07:46:55 [rhiaro]
... the html representation is an ED of a NOTE that describes the terms that are in activitystreams
07:47:12 [rhiaro]
... the core activitystreams vocabulary, we have the AP extensions and the DID Core extensions
07:47:15 [Loqi_]
[preview] [Amy Guy] ActivityStreams 2.0 Terms
07:47:16 [tantek]
q+ to ask how many in meeting AP implementers do we have?
07:47:19 [tantek]
07:47:51 [rhiaro]
... there's also a reference in this doc that says approval of extensions will be by the CG.. process and criteria is being finalised. The suggestion is to finalise that and link it here
07:47:58 [tantek]
07:48:35 [tantek]
ack pfefferle
07:48:35 [Zakim]
pfefferle, you wanted to note there is already a community process:
07:48:40 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: community process for creating FEPs
07:49:09 [rhiaro]
... for creating extensions.. Fediverse Enhancement Proposals
07:49:12 [bumblefudge_]
bumblefudge_ has joined #social
07:49:22 [rhiaro]
... a light community oriented process that mirrors a lot of programming language enhancement processes
07:49:28 [rhiaro]
... I think it's based on PEPs the python process
07:49:41 [rhiaro]
... there are some very interesting extensions built with this mechanism
07:49:46 [rhiaro]
... there's a lot of interesting process here
07:50:03 [rhiaro]
... it's loosely connected to this community group through the socialhub forum
07:50:22 [rhiaro]
... suffice it to say I'm not sure there's a part of the FEP process that includes the process of including terms within the AS2 context document
07:50:35 [rhiaro]
... because the loose affiliation of people involved don't have access to modify that document
07:50:45 [rhiaro]
... we as the CG are responsible for maintaining that document and doing these extensions
07:50:58 [rhiaro]
... I'm not sure that the idea that there is this FEP process is entirely related to how we included extensions in activitystreams 2.0
07:51:01 [rhiaro]
... does that answer the questions?
07:51:31 [pfefferle]
I only wanted to mention it, to not have two different processes
07:51:54 [rhiaro]
... JSON-LD lets anyone include thier own vocabularys, many implementers do.
07:52:01 [pfefferle]
I can hear you but its very noisy
07:52:05 [rhiaro]
... Those are the major sources of extensions and we should encourage all of that
07:52:13 [pfefferle]
was there a question for me?
07:52:15 [rhiaro]
... the question si when do we take those extensions and include them in the activitystreams context document?
07:52:26 [rhiaro]
... What is the criteria for including them in the AS2 context document
07:52:33 [eprodrom]
07:52:48 [rhiaro]
... this is a draft extensions policy
07:53:31 [rhiaro]
... it's very light
07:53:49 [rhiaro]
tantek: how many AP implementers we have here that would be participating in this kind of process?
07:54:02 [rhiaro]
... how many people today can contribute to this discussion?
07:54:12 [rhiaro]
bumblefudge_: how are you defining implementer and participation? I'm working on FEPs with people
07:54:30 [rhiaro]
tantek: we're not directly implementing AP per se but we have launched a mastodon instance at and we've been making lots of modifications to that implementation
07:54:41 [rhiaro]
... not to its ap functionality yet, but we are touching code that is touching activitypub
07:54:44 [rhiaro]
... anyone else?
07:55:05 [rhiaro]
btsavage: Ben Savage, Meta. We may well at some point need to add extensions for various things
07:55:30 [rhiaro]
bumblefudge_: I'm working on the test suite, and not on a specific implementation, but specifically on the FEP process
07:55:33 [rhiaro]
... hoping to help this be the on ramp to extensions
07:55:41 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'm also implementing activitypub in various ways, clients and servers
07:55:55 [mro]
I am implementing for Seppo.Social.
07:56:03 [rhiaro]
Casey: I'd potentially be interested in using extensions for postmarks which is early stage
07:56:13 [tantek]
07:56:16 [tantek]
ack tantek
07:56:16 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to ask how many in meeting AP implementers do we have?
07:56:16 [rhiaro]
... and at, we're exploring AP integration, we might be exploring extensions for that but don't know yet
07:56:59 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
07:57:08 [rhiaro]
tantek: pfefferle is implementing ActivityPub for WordPress
07:57:15 [rhiaro]
... that answers my question, some people here who can give feedback
07:57:21 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'll discuss the suggested process
07:57:51 [rhiaro]
... Section 2. Several step process. the first is encouraging publication, so publish extension for review
07:58:10 [rhiaro]
... Noted a few places including the FEP system, NOTES on socialcg. Also publishing anywhere else.
07:58:21 [rhiaro]
... Publish so it can be implemented
07:58:23 [rhiaro]
... It needs to be implemented, have to have it in use
07:58:34 [rhiaro]
... third is that we have a registry where we list existing extension
07:58:39 [rhiaro]
... there's no barrier for that whatsoever
07:58:42 [rhiaro]
... any extension can be listed
07:58:47 [rhiaro]
... the fourth step is proposing the extension for inclusion
07:58:59 [rhiaro]
... justification why it's important for this extension to be part of the AS2 vocabularly document
07:59:02 [rhiaro]
... having a vote within the CG
07:59:15 [rhiaro]
... Our group would decide whether or not to include that document
07:59:20 [rhiaro]
... create a draft of the context document, including the new terms
07:59:26 [rhiaro]
... we test that draft, and then it becomes official
07:59:43 [rhiaro]
... I think that this is a fairly standard mechanism for making changes to an existing document
07:59:49 [rhiaro]
... and for building extensions that become part of the core system
08:00:18 [bumblefudge_]
08:00:51 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
08:00:59 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: the criteria for including extensions in AS 2.0 .. the extension must have its own context, describes terms and usage, has an IPR policy that's compatible with w3c
08:01:41 [rhiaro]
... asking for 2 independant publishers and consumers regardless of whether it's c2s or s2s
08:02:09 [rhiaro]
... a publisher and consumer might be the same software
08:02:20 [rhiaro]
... that's the minimum for interoperability. Hard to make a case for interop happening with only one implementer
08:03:42 [rhiaro]
bumblefudge_: this seems really straightforward. There's something a little implicit which is what happens if my work is msasively overwhelmingly successful and there's 20 FEPs that have been implemented twice that each have testable context files attached in the FEP repo
08:03:42 [rhiaro]
... and the WG has to timeline them, prioritise them, pick which are worth foisting on all implementers
08:03:42 [rhiaro]
... there's a gating thing that isn't mentioned at all
08:03:45 [rhiaro]
... once lal the criteria is met, there's a deliberation process?
08:03:59 [tantek]
q+ to ask about test cases for extensions
08:03:59 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: good point. One option is we just put every extension into the context, and that we don't make any decisions
08:03:59 [rhiaro]
... two reasons we wouldnt' do that
08:04:00 [tantek]
ack bumblefudge_
08:04:17 [rhiaro]
... conflicts of terms, terms that are used in multiple vocabs, that makes it difficult to do inclusions so we need to resolve those
08:04:17 [rhiaro]
... second is size
08:04:26 [rhiaro]
... the context document is not large. 10s of kb
08:04:31 [rhiaro]
... but there i sa point at which it can get very large
08:05:23 [rhiaro]
... and it's hosted on the web. There may be size issues to be concerned about
08:05:23 [rhiaro]
... Third, the process. How do we queue things coming in from FEPs and other systems?
08:05:23 [rhiaro]
... the fact that we would vote on it within the CG before including something, is that the point at which we'd use that discretion?
08:05:42 [rhiaro]
bumblefudge_: I can imagine a couple of of ways of doing it that have strengths and weaknesses. I don't have an answer I prefer
08:06:02 [rhiaro]
... I've seen extensions in other processes are welcome, but merging into the main context is almost like making it a required feature
08:06:07 [rhiaro]
... some processes do that only at major versions
08:06:15 [rhiaro]
... extensions now are eligible to be in the context in the next major version
08:06:20 [rhiaro]
... that's one form of governance I've seen for these kinds of processes
08:06:26 [rhiaro]
... in some contexts the testability is debated for a while
08:06:42 [rhiaro]
... you have to provide an extesnion to a test suite that proves you can work with someone who didn't implement the extension for example
08:06:52 [rhiaro]
... Just positing that it maybe forces other issues abot what's a major version, what's the WG/CG division of power?
08:07:14 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: interesting question. Because we've already done this twice since the major version of AS2, we at least have some precedent for doing it between major versions
08:07:20 [rhiaro]
... I would not see that we need a version change in order to do this
08:07:29 [rhiaro]
... I also think this is a backwards compatible process if we're doing it additively
08:08:00 [rhiaro]
... if we were to add the security vocabularly that we use for http signatures in AP and is widely used, but the vocab has to be included each time you create an AP document
08:08:04 [rhiaro]
... that's a strong candidate
08:08:49 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Any examples of other vocabs, system, with a similar process of inclusion of extensions?
08:09:05 [rhiaro]
... where extensions are built and then filtered into a core system?
08:09:13 [tantek]
08:09:18 [tantek]
ack tantek
08:09:18 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to ask about test cases for extensions
08:09:42 [rhiaro]
tantek: this is a great minimal start to a process. The one suggestion I'd have is in the criteria ...
08:09:46 [tantek]
08:09:54 [rhiaro]
... it mentions demonstrate implementation
08:10:12 [rhiaro]
... I think for that .. how do we .. what are the test case requirements for that?
08:10:34 [rhiaro]
... usually you demonstrate a test suite that can validate for a publisher, or a for a consumer a set of test cases that produces a user visible result
08:10:44 [rhiaro]
... I think it would be useful for the criteria to be explicit about that, and give an example
08:10:59 [dka]
q+ to ask about i18n, a11y, privacy, etc...
08:11:01 [rhiaro]
... In the microformats community we came up with a change control process for adding vocabulary terms
08:11:18 [tantek]
08:11:20 [rhiaro]
... once people are depending on it and systems are interoperating it's a different process
08:11:24 [rhiaro]
... it's very similar
08:11:32 [rhiaro]
... the difference is we have a few stages. Proposed, draft, stable
08:11:45 [rhiaro]
... we've found that's useful to give people an idea of where a proposal is in the process, and how to move it to the next stage
08:11:57 [rhiaro]
... one difference is we settled on 3+ publishers/consumers
08:12:11 [rhiaro]
... people would get excited about an extension, you could easily get 2, and those wouldn't necessarily last
08:12:23 [bumblefudge_]
q+ to differentiate vocabulary changes (which should be backwards compatible) from features or behavioral changes (which require test cases/suite support)
08:12:25 [rhiaro]
... asking for 3 has been enough that 2 will continue existing over time
08:12:35 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: that makes sense
08:12:49 [rhiaro]
... Test cases do raise the bar there
08:12:53 [rhiaro]
... a testable behaviour
08:13:10 [rhiaro]
... not necessarily a bad thing ,but it would slow down that process
08:13:19 [rhiaro]
tantek: would help to say is there an implementation
08:13:22 [btsavage]
08:13:38 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: would it be worthwhile to .. "required" and "desired" eg in a job description
08:13:51 [rhiaro]
... don't request without 2 implementers, better with 3
08:14:00 [eprodrom]
08:14:07 [tantek]
ack dka
08:14:07 [Zakim]
dka, you wanted to ask about i18n, a11y, privacy, etc...
08:14:17 [rhiaro]
dka: recognise that you're trying to keep the process lightweight
08:14:22 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
08:14:29 [rhiaro]
... in the TAG we do review of specs, and we ask for explainers. Document the user needs
08:14:35 [rhiaro]
... have you done accessibility review, security and privacy review
08:14:41 [rhiaro]
... i know some of these things are going to be quite small
08:14:53 [tantek]
qq+ to answer dka
08:14:56 [rhiaro]
... but it does feel like criteria.. if you're expecting some to be part of the core spec they'll need to go through that level of rigour at that point
08:15:01 [rhiaro]
... better to catch those issues ahead of time
08:15:07 [rhiaro]
... especially around a11y, i18n, privacy and security
08:15:17 [rhiaro]
... we have assets in the TAG that can help people reivew their specs
08:15:18 [dmitriz]
dmitriz has joined #social
08:15:29 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: it's a good point, but a heavier process
08:15:47 [rhiaro]
tantek: support the horizontal review in the TAG, that's important. the vocab in AS2 predates the registry process in w3c
08:16:01 [rhiaro]
... the way evan is proposing is much closer to the way registries are handled in in w3c now
08:16:06 [rhiaro]
... closer than a new feature
08:16:06 [rhiaro]
... but it's kind of a mix
08:16:11 [rhiaro]
... the AS2 context is kind of a registry
08:16:20 [rhiaro]
... however there's usually some interesting piece of user functionality which comes with each function
08:16:23 [bengo]
08:16:32 [rhiaro]
... that user functionality would hep to have some kind of horizontal review
08:16:44 [rhiaro]
dka: eg. the words with friends example - there'd be a microsyntax, and does it take accessibility into account?
08:16:52 [rhiaro]
tantek: right now, WGs can add things to registries without any review
08:16:54 [dmitriz]
08:16:57 [rhiaro]
... somewhere in the middle
08:17:00 [bengo]
08:17:02 [tantek]
08:17:04 [tantek]
ack tantek
08:17:04 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to react to dka to answer dka
08:17:15 [tantek]
ack bumblefudge_
08:17:15 [Zakim]
bumblefudge_, you wanted to differentiate vocabulary changes (which should be backwards compatible) from features or behavioral changes (which require test cases/suite support)
08:17:46 [rhiaro]
bumblefudge_: some of the things that are currently FEPs include .. if something is only adding something to the vocab... a vocab change should be backwards compatible, deosn't break implementations
08:17:56 [rhiaro]
... but most of the time they're not just semantic extensions, they're semantic and behaviour
08:18:12 [rhiaro]
... we're dancing around the fact that the semantic extension part should always be backwards compatible. But there's a behavioural extension motivating adding the extension
08:18:13 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
08:18:21 [rhiaro]
... the context is just a registry, but there's almost always a behavioural extension attached
08:18:39 [rhiaro]
... if the behavioural extension is big enough to maybe break implementations that haven't implemented it, then you need a test suite.... that's a totally different beast
08:18:45 [rhiaro]
... maybe this is too complicated?
08:18:46 [rhiaro]
... but some thoughts
08:19:00 [Loqi_]
bumblefudge has 1 karma over the last year
08:19:02 [rhiaro]
... Also, there isn't currently a single robust test suite that is easy to extend as a fep is to write
08:19:19 [rhiaro]
... if you coudl just write a fep and then add some test cases to an existing test suite it would be much easier to make a testability requirement
08:19:26 [tantek]
08:19:27 [rhiaro]
... but until we have that we're laying tracks in front of a moving train
08:19:36 [eprodrom]
ack btsavage
08:19:37 [tantek]
ack btsavage
08:19:42 [rhiaro]
btsavage: I like the suggestion from tantke that to b eincluded there need to be test suites
08:19:49 [tantek]
08:19:50 [rhiaro]
... I think it's helpful for new activitypub implementers
08:20:00 [tantek]
s/to b eincluded/to be included
08:20:07 [rhiaro]
... for all of the official extensions to have a test suite to work with
08:20:45 [rhiaro]
... part of the incentive, to be part of the official list there need to be tests, seems like it would create a nice outcome
08:20:45 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: also one of the reasons we create test suites is so we don't have regressions or problems when we make additions
08:20:45 [eprodrom]
08:20:45 [eprodrom]
ack eprodrom
08:21:17 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: the question I have is how we move forward with this process
08:21:17 [rhiaro]
... I'd like to propose we adopt the process document as presented as a draft to be maintained and developed by the CG
08:22:22 [rhiaro]
... this would be a first draft note and we continue with modifications to this draft
08:22:22 [rhiaro]
tantek: does that include adopting it as process, or adopting it as something to publish?
08:22:22 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: the latter
08:22:22 [rhiaro]
... not adopt the process yet
08:22:22 [rhiaro]
tantek: cg publish reports, but not NOTEs
08:22:59 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
08:23:57 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: use as a draft of a report for an extensions policy for SocialCG
08:23:57 [rhiaro]
tantek: do you want suggestions for improvements filed as issues on that repo?
08:23:57 [dmitriz]
08:23:57 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: yes
08:24:29 [rhiaro]
... eg. versioning, test case requirements, etc
08:24:29 [tantek]
+1 to publish that as a CG report, and file our suggested improvements as issues on the repo linked in the draft
08:24:29 [bengo]
08:24:29 [rhiaro]
08:24:29 [bumblefudge_]
08:24:29 [dka]
08:24:55 [bengo]
wrt "cg publish reports, but not NOTEs", I would like a citation on that
08:25:12 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: use as a draft of a report for an extensions policy for SocialCG
08:25:34 [tantek]
bengo, it's in the W3C Process, I bet plh can dig up a citation there
08:25:41 [eprodrom]
08:25:47 [tantek]
08:25:55 [Loqi_]
[preview] [Tantek Çelik] going to the #SocialWeb CG meeting @W3C #w3cTPAC tomorrow (2023-09-12) at 09:30 CEST.
08:25:55 [Loqi_]
Looking forward to seeing ( @evanpro) and many others!
08:25:55 [Loqi_]
So many advances in #ActivityPub, #Webmention, Micropub, #IndieAuth etc. that it...
08:26:04 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: group status and rechartering
08:26:08 [bengo]
wrt rechartering, that seems like something that should have been on the agenda 2 weeks ago
08:26:13 [bengo]
(per process doc)
08:26:22 [rhiaro]
dka: So... what's going on?
08:26:55 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: we were originally chartered in 2015 and worked for 3 years with some generous extensions, published 6 RECs
08:27:12 [tantek]
correction 7:
08:27:17 [rhiaro]
... the off ramp for that WG was the idea that this cg would do ongoing maintenance of those documents
08:27:55 [rhiaro]
... The current state of play is that the CG does some work in that area, we do meet fairly regularly
08:28:02 [rhiaro]
... we do issue triage
08:28:06 [tantek]
08:28:10 [bengo]
q+ to discuss whether the w3c process generally requires f2f meetings to have agenda items like rechartering to be published two weeks before f2f meetings (
08:28:15 [rhiaro]
... however we're not able to update the rec track documents
08:28:16 [plh]
--> Social Web Working Group - Charters
08:28:17 [plh]
08:28:29 [Loqi_]
[preview] [Elika J. Etemad / fantasai] W3C Process Document
08:28:31 [tantek]
q+ to ask where are the errata to ActivityPub and note living spec updates to Webmention, Micropub, IndieAuth etc.
08:28:42 [rhiaro]
... one reason for us to recharter is for us to be able to move forward with those documents and take them to next versions
08:29:02 [dka]
08:29:10 [rhiaro]
... There have been, since the publication of activitystreams and activitypub and the others, there have been a lot of development use, real world experience
08:29:20 [rhiaro]
... there may be some value in applying those to iterations on those documents
08:29:27 [tantek]
ack bengo
08:29:29 [Zakim]
bengo, you wanted to discuss whether the w3c process generally requires f2f meetings to have agenda items like rechartering to be published two weeks before f2f meetings
08:29:30 [eprodrom]
ack bengo
08:29:30 [dka]
q+ to recommend dual CG/WG approach.
08:29:31 [Zakim]
... (
08:29:38 [Loqi_]
[preview] [Elika J. Etemad / fantasai] W3C Process Document
08:29:54 [rhiaro]
bengo: I noticed there was an agenda published before the meeting but it didn't include anything about rechartering
08:30:09 [rhiaro]
... wrt to process it would normally the agenda for f2f meetings would be published 2 weeks in advance, especially to discuss something as serious as rechartering a group
08:30:15 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I think this is a discussion, not a decision
08:30:19 [rhiaro]
... but that's a fair point
08:30:28 [tantek]
08:30:34 [rhiaro]
... if we feel comfortable with it, we'll not make any decisions in this morning's meeting
08:30:47 [rhiaro]
tantek: the process doesn't have that requirement for CGs, only for WGs
08:31:10 [rhiaro]
... second, a common process is to do agenda gardening as the first thing in the beginning of the meeting, people are given an opportunity to suggest or prioritise items
08:31:41 [rhiaro]
bengo: sounds good. Just worth having future discussions and not making resolutions without a bigger quorum
08:31:41 [tantek]
08:31:42 [bengo]
08:31:42 [tantek]
ack tantek
08:31:42 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to react to bengo
08:31:48 [tantek]
ack plh
08:31:55 [plh]
--> Revising a Recommendation: Editorial Changes
08:32:21 [rhiaro]
plh: we don't need a WG to make editorial changes to docs, you can come to the Team for that
08:32:25 [rhiaro]
... but for substantive changes, we need a WG
08:32:59 [rhiaro]
... The way the current process.. the short version is the team propose a charter to the AC. We're looking for a group to tell us what they like for a charter, and we'll send it to the AC
08:33:43 [tantek]
08:33:43 [rhiaro]
... I'd be looking for, if we're going to create a WG to work on ActivityPub, I'd be looking to this community to tell the Team what you'd like to see in the charter because you know better than us
08:33:49 [rhiaro]
... I'm very supportive of relaunching the social web WG for the simple reason that we have a rec and I'd like to have a WG to maintain it
08:34:02 [rhiaro]
... when we closed the WG back then, we didn't have this process
08:34:15 [rhiaro]
... Nowadays we dont' close the WG, they're in charge of maintaining the rec as a maintenance WG
08:34:22 [rhiaro]
... Now there's interest in actively maintaining the rec
08:34:26 [bengo]
(for posterity, it is very hard for remote attendees to hear)
08:34:26 [rhiaro]
... for ActivityPub
08:34:29 [tantek]
+1 plh
08:34:37 [rhiaro]
tantek: agree with plh
08:34:50 [rhiaro]
... we have seen a huge amount of substnative functional improvements to AP and AS2 by implementers
08:34:54 [dmitriz]
fwiw, so far there's been fairly significant community pushback to rechartering
08:34:57 [rhiaro]
... which has been largely self governed and operating fairly well
08:35:10 [rhiaro]
... getting some of that into the core rec would be a good thing
08:35:16 [rhiaro]
... we've had 7 recs come out of social web wg
08:35:19 [rhiaro]
... some have updates already
08:35:43 [eprodrom]
08:35:49 [rhiaro]
... maintained as living standards by the indieweb community
08:36:05 [rhiaro]
... eg. micropub. Would be great to get iprovements rolled into the w3c spec
08:36:16 [rhiaro]
... we published a NOTE for indieauth because it was outside of the scope of the charter. We have a lot more implementations since then
08:36:25 [rhiaro]
... I'd requst it was considered in scope for a rec track document based on the NOTE
08:36:37 [rhiaro]
... lastly, there are a few new related specs that have been implemented, like microsub
08:36:43 [rhiaro]
... multiple implemenations there
08:36:54 [rhiaro]
... clients and servers
08:36:59 [rhiaro]
... to add to the scope of a new WG
08:37:10 [rhiaro]
... example - bridgy.fed - interesting unintended successes of the previous WG
08:37:28 [rhiaro]
... evan and I worked really hard with the staff contacts and chairs to take 15 or so approaches to the social web and narrow them down to 2.5 to 3
08:37:53 [rhiaro]
... we decided instead of trying to fight that out down to 1, we'd allow those communities to develop their technical approachs, and use the wg as a forum to develop interop across them
08:38:00 [rhiaro]
... in terms of semantics, minimising friction when coverting between them
08:38:12 [rhiaro]
... now we have services like bridgy fed that can connect between these different stacks
08:38:26 [rhiaro]
... on I publish html, I use webmentions, and I use bridgyfed to connect directly with the fediverse
08:39:11 [rhiaro]
... I haven'tw ritten a single line of ap myself, and send bridgyfed a webmention, it delivers them ap inboxes across a number of people
08:39:11 [rhiaro]
... there's a dashboard
08:39:11 [rhiaro]
... I'd like to replicate that with the other technical approaches we're seeing, some are not in this room
08:39:11 [rhiaro]
... eg. BlueSky
08:39:13 [bengo]
bsky is going to IETF
08:39:18 [rhiaro]
... and Nostr
08:39:24 [rhiaro]
... blockchain based, also growing in adoption
08:39:29 [rhiaro]
... we're at this interesting moment for the social web
08:39:43 [rhiaro]
... people want to invent a bunch of approaches, and w3c could serve a role here to bring together a bunch of different approaches
08:39:47 [rhiaro]
... that's my suggestion for scope
08:39:54 [rhiaro]
... to define it in such a way to be welcoming to those other groups
08:39:56 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
08:40:00 [rhiaro]
... to build bridges and allow for interop
08:40:06 [bumblefudge_]
nostr<>AP bridging is already happening in the wild (somewhat chaotically for the moderation system of AP that is, as yet, underspecified...)
08:40:43 [rhiaro]
dka: if you do recharter a WG that you keep the CG running as well - having that dual mode approach I've seen work very well with other things
08:40:43 [bumblefudge_]
and i have also heard from the bsky team that IETF is being targeted for some specs
08:40:43 [rhiaro]
... eg. the immersive web
08:40:43 [cwilso]
08:40:43 [btsavage]
08:41:16 [rhiaro]
... keeping the WG lightweight and focussed around what it needs to do to update the rec
08:41:16 [rhiaro]
... and having most of the technical work happen in the CG is probably the right balance
08:41:16 [rhiaro]
... you probably already know that
08:41:16 [tantek]
+1 dka
08:42:19 [tantek]
ack tantek
08:42:19 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to ask where are the errata to ActivityPub and note living spec updates to Webmention, Micropub, IndieAuth etc.
08:42:19 [tantek]
ack dka
08:42:19 [Zakim]
dka, you wanted to recommend dual CG/WG approach.
08:42:19 [tantek]
08:42:19 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
08:42:26 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I'm concerned about opening specifically AS2 and AP to normative changes fo r a couple of reasons
08:42:26 [rhiaro]
... it's going through a period of explosive growth
08:43:30 [rhiaro]
... if we establish a process for treating an AS2.0 potentially breaking changes that may put a damper on implementation
08:43:30 [tantek]
08:43:30 [rhiaro]
... why would I implement AP1 today? I should wait until AP2 comes out and it's not done and it's taking years..
08:43:30 [rhiaro]
... may have potential for inhibiting uptake right now, unless it was well messaged, backwards compatible
08:43:30 [tantek]
q+ to note we can be explicit about keeping AP compatibility in the Charter scope
08:43:30 [rhiaro]
... I will also say that there are ... with aset of recommendations that exist right now that are available for developers to use right now, I'm less supportive of more protocols being built right now
08:43:33 [rhiaro]
... I'd probably not think that adding BlueSky to socialcg makes sense
08:43:49 [rhiaro]
... it's an effort to build a proprietary protocal separate from existing standards
08:43:55 [rhiaro]
... I'm not sure having an array of standards is helpful for developers or users
08:44:02 [rhiaro]
... it's a different world than it was in 2017
08:44:26 [rhiaro]
... considerably more people, more implemenations, more infrastructure
08:45:05 [rhiaro]
... I would not necesssarily encourage other experimentation at this point that isn't compatible
08:45:05 [tantek]
08:45:05 [plh]
[actually, the right answer is 2014 :) ]
08:45:05 [bumblefudge_]
q+ to inquire where people think bridging/cross-protocol interop work belongs in a WG/CG split like dka proposed?
08:45:05 [rhiaro]
btsavage: if we are going to charter a wg, my recommendationw ould be to keep the scope quite limited
08:45:13 [rhiaro]
... this is based on my experience in the private advertising technology cg
08:45:22 [rhiaro]
... we've been attempting to create a wg for nearly 2 years
08:45:25 [rhiaro]
... faced a lot of challenges
08:45:29 [rhiaro]
... one set has been pushback on scope
08:45:35 [tantek]
q+ to also note rechartering a previous WG is very different than chartering a new WG
08:45:35 [bumblefudge_]
08:45:37 [rhiaro]
... it could potentially slow us down
08:45:42 [rhiaro]
... in getting a wg chartered
08:45:51 [dka]
08:45:51 [rhiaro]
... I'd love any advice to avoid a situation where it takes years
08:45:54 [tantek]
08:45:56 [tantek]
ack btsavage
08:45:59 [plh]
08:46:08 [bengo]
is bsky pbllc even a w3c member company?
08:46:09 [tantek]
ack tantek
08:46:09 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to note we can be explicit about keeping AP compatibility in the Charter scope and to also note rechartering a previous WG is very different than chartering a
08:46:12 [Zakim]
... new WG
08:46:24 [rhiaro]
tantek: sympathise with the potential problems with divergance in this space, we share a lot of values there
08:46:35 [rhiaro]
... it took a lot of hard work to come to the balance that we did in the original social web wg
08:46:40 [rhiaro]
... I think there is a social componenent to this..
08:46:51 [rhiaro]
... maybe we don't need to get those discussions into the cg - maybe a liason effort
08:47:00 [rhiaro]
... someone mentioned bluesky going to ietf? Maybe a liason opportunity there
08:47:08 [bumblefudge_]
+1 to btsavage -- each additional function we assign to this maintenance group is additional risk of falling into the charter swamp
08:47:20 [eprodrom]
08:47:24 [rhiaro]
... I strongly agree that we should keep AP compatible. Against breaking changes against what's been implemented
08:47:30 [rhiaro]
... we might make changes to reflect what implementations decided to do
08:47:44 [rhiaro]
... charters can say we'll work on this spec, but out of scope are breaking changes as far as what is implemented
08:47:47 [rhiaro]
... tha twould be one guardrail
08:47:52 [rhiaro]
... we could put other guardrails in place
08:47:56 [rhiaro]
... to not break momentum
08:48:00 [bengo]
What if we made an activitypub CG?
08:48:01 [rhiaro]
... a WG can help reinforce what you're asking for
08:48:28 [rhiaro]
... to btsavage's challenge... it's a different istuation rechartering vs chartering a new wg, to update recs that have taken off in the market
08:48:32 [rhiaro]
... agree a new wg should have a narrow charter
08:48:36 [rhiaro]
... a lot of things to establish
08:49:00 [rhiaro]
... wouldn't suggest adding a bunch of new things
08:49:06 [rhiaro]
... but maintaining what we know has been widely adopted
08:49:16 [rhiaro]
... taking the things with multiple implementations which are not recommendations yet
08:49:24 [rhiaro]
... and including those
08:49:28 [rhiaro]
... eg. indiauth
08:49:33 [tantek]
08:49:36 [tantek]
ack plh
08:50:03 [rhiaro]
plh: we can make the charter of the wg about only fixing.. not allowing new features. Only modify normative aspects of specs if it's already deployed and reflects reality
08:50:07 [rhiaro]
... we can make the charter as tight as possible
08:50:11 [tantek]
08:50:17 [rhiaro]
... we're not working on a new version of AP, just making sure the spec reflects reality
08:50:26 [rhiaro]
... PNG is an example of that
08:50:39 [rhiaro]
... and we want new implementers to implement reality
08:50:45 [eprodrom]
ack eprodrom
08:50:45 [rhiaro]
... we can set that as a goal in the charter
08:51:19 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: strong goal
08:51:20 [rhiaro]
... As ben pointed out, we're not going to try and make decisions today, but it sounds like from this conversation that there is... can we do a straw poll?
08:51:32 [rhiaro]
... sounds like we have support for exploring a charter
08:51:43 [rhiaro]
dka: gotta go, but +1, feel like this is necessary
08:52:11 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: suggest we defer this to the next cg meeting in 2 weeks
08:52:11 [tantek]
q+ to suggest a proposal
08:52:22 [rhiaro]
... consider a proposal for starting a charter process
08:52:32 [rhiaro]
tantek: a good idea for the wg to do refinements
08:52:40 [rhiaro]
... but there's a much broader set of participants here at tpac
08:52:47 [rhiaro]
... what belongs in a charter, what belongs in a w3c charter
08:52:59 [rhiaro]
... even a straw poll from the people in this room and on the channel would be a useful opinion to take
08:53:05 [rhiaro]
... we can keep iterating on that
08:53:11 [rhiaro]
... we should iterate in socialcg meetings
08:53:32 [bengo]
a straw poll would be misrepresentative of the broader cant-afford-to-attend-TPAC-on-company dime ecosystem
08:54:04 [tantek]
PROPOSED: Explore rechartering the Social Web WG to do updates on existing RECs with wide implementations, consider adopting NOTEs with interoperable implementations as WDs, and consider incubations with interoperable implementations for WDs
08:54:35 [plh]
08:54:41 [plh]
ack tantek
08:54:41 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to suggest a proposal
08:54:44 [tantek]
ack tantek
08:54:49 [bumblefudge_]
PROPOSED: Explore rechartering the Social Web WG to do updates on existing RECs with wide implementations, designate a core suite of testing strategiesconsider adopting NOTEs with interoperable implementations as WDs, and consider incubations with interoperable implementations for WDs
08:54:55 [bumblefudge_]
oops sorry
08:54:59 [bumblefudge_]
strike that
08:54:59 [rhiaro]
plh: are you proposing that the WG has new features in scope?
08:55:27 [rhiaro]
tantek: yes because implemenations have added new features that are beyond the scope of the spec right now. Eg. extensions. I'd like the WG to consider a similar process for improving AP and AS2 specs
08:55:36 [eprodrom]
08:55:40 [plh]
ack plh
08:55:42 [eprodrom]
ack plh
08:55:47 [tantek]
bumblefudge_: +1 on including testing strategies
08:55:49 [tantek]
08:55:53 [bengo]
-1 not all RECs are worth working on hand-in-hand
08:56:25 [dmitriz]
-0.5 (needs broader conversation w community first)
08:56:29 [rhiaro]
bengo: I don't think it's a good idea to charter working on all of the different recs that came out of the WG in the past
08:56:43 [plh]
08:56:53 [rhiaro]
... people look in the minutes of the days we voted on those TRs that there were some surprise things inserted in and voted on things that were published before even AS2
08:56:57 [rhiaro]
tantek: which things?
08:57:05 [plh]
08:57:07 [bumblefudge_]
q+ I have an alternate proposal to run
08:57:15 [rhiaro]
bengo: would make sense to narrow it to only AS2 and AP if that's where by far the most adoption has happened vs other recs
08:57:17 [bumblefudge_]
(slight adjustment, not really alternative)
08:57:24 [rhiaro]
... we could clarify what we mean by wide adoption and enumerate exactly what we mean
08:57:32 [tantek]
08:57:35 [bumblefudge_]
08:57:40 [bumblefudge_]
PROPOSED: Explore rechartering the Social Web WG to do updates on existing RECs with wide implementations, designate a core suite of testing strategies, and integrate it with the FEP process and/or additional independent/community processes. Maybe adopting NOTEs with interoperable implementations as WDs, and incubation of interoperable implementations for WDs could stay in CG for now, until the test suite has consensus that would be t[CUT]
08:57:41 [tantek]
ack bumblefudge_
08:58:08 [eprodrom]
08:58:17 [rhiaro]
bumblefudge_: laying tracks before moving train... if a maintenance group could take as its target defining a set of test tools that would be the basis for interoperable things
08:58:27 [rhiaro]
... and bengo's comment about defining what's wide enough adoption
08:58:28 [tantek]
+1 defining a set of test tools
08:58:31 [rhiaro]
... I feel like those are slightly downstream
08:58:44 [rhiaro]
... you could maintain what there already is and have a foundation for deciding which specs can be declared provably interoperable
08:58:51 [rhiaro]
... is there any way to stagger it, or do you have to recharter?
08:59:00 [rhiaro]
... Maybe a layering thing. I'd love some time to have a test basis before moving testing into scope
08:59:08 [eprodrom]
ack bumblefudge_
08:59:12 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: Explore rechartering the Social Web WG
08:59:38 [tantek]
08:59:49 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: proposal that takes out what we'd be exploring. Explore means we're going to spend time in the cg over the next multiple meetings now that we have this on the table, to discuss what that would actually entail, and work with staff and members to decide about what that is
09:00:01 [tantek]
+1 from dka as well who had to leave who gave general support for rechartering a Social Web WG
09:00:02 [rhiaro]
+1 exploration without specifying detail yet
09:00:05 [eprodrom]
09:00:08 [bengo]
is this a proposal or a straw poll
09:00:08 [bumblefudge_]
09:00:25 [pfefferle]
09:00:32 [rhiaro]
tantek: as a CG we don't make formal decisions. This is the same thing
09:00:58 [dmitriz]
+0 (doesn't seem urgent, given the overall lack of interest in it in
09:01:06 [dmitriz]
the wider community)
09:01:12 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: seeing some concerns
09:01:20 [bengo]
0 - this should have more notice for more votes to be registered
09:01:46 [plh]
09:01:50 [rhiaro]
... will reach out to participants who aren't here today
09:01:51 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
09:01:51 [plh]
ack eprodrom
09:01:58 [bumblefudge_]
yeah i thought i was +1ing defining a few scopes and strawpolling them at the next meeting
09:02:00 [rhiaro]
... we can defer the rest of the agenda for today
09:02:21 [rhiaro]
plh: come back to me with the conclusion, I'm interesting in the outcome of this conversation
09:02:25 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
09:02:34 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: what would we come to you with?
09:02:46 [rhiaro]
plh: bullet points, whatever you want
09:03:00 [rhiaro]
... we can turn that into a charter, and send it back for iteration
09:03:11 [rhiaro]
tantek: I'd suggest listing what we want to work on standards track, updating or new
09:03:14 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: thanks everyone, ajourned
09:03:25 [rhiaro]
... reminder of two breakout sessions tomorrow
09:03:37 [rhiaro]
bumblefudge_: at 1215 and 1430
09:12:36 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
09:37:26 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
09:40:52 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
09:53:39 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
09:53:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
09:56:13 [tantek]
present+ Juan
09:56:21 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
09:56:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
10:01:03 [tantek]
Zakim, end meeting
10:01:03 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Dan_Appelquist, tantek, btsavage, eprodrom, bkardell_, rhiaro, cwilso, Chris_Needham, plh, miriam, pfefferle, dmitriz, bengo, Juan
10:01:06 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
10:01:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Zakim
10:01:14 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, tantek; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
10:01:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #social
10:03:02 [plh]
plh has left #social
10:20:12 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
10:28:14 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
10:29:23 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
10:58:13 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
11:20:57 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
12:05:25 [cel[c]]
cel[c] has joined #social
12:05:25 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
12:07:30 [feld65]
feld65 has joined #social
12:07:45 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
12:13:06 [nightpool[m]]
nightpool[m] has joined #social
12:50:33 [xkr47]
xkr47 has joined #social
12:57:05 [herman]
herman has joined #social
14:16:22 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
16:07:37 [tantek]
Social Web / Fediverse meetup tonight adjacent to TPAC:
16:07:56 [Loqi_]
[preview] [Evan Prodromou] OK, this is happening Tuesday night from 19:00-20:00 local. We're having a fediverse meetup aka a #FedUp.If you're in Seville for #W3C #TPAC and you're on the fediverse, come hang out with us for drinks and snacks.100 Montaditos, C. San Fernando, 29I...