IRC log of social on 2023-09-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:38:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
12:38:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:38:53 [capjamesg]
Zakim, this conference is SWICG Community Meeting September 22nd, 2023
12:38:53 [Zakim]
got it, capjamesg
12:39:03 [capjamesg]
Meeting: SWICG Community Meeting September 22nd, 2023
12:39:18 [capjamesg]
Chair: Jame
12:39:23 [capjamesg]
Chair: James
12:40:04 [capjamesg]
12:48:56 [nightpool]
nightpool has joined #social
12:49:16 [nightpool]
my money for an irc client that has working mobile push notifications
12:50:30 [pfefferle]
pfefferle has joined #social
12:52:38 [aaronpk]
Glowing Bear just added iOS PWA push notification support
12:54:37 [capjamesg]
Meeting starts in 6 minutes:
12:59:41 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
13:01:24 [dmitriz]
dmitriz has joined #social
13:01:31 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
13:02:19 [bengo]
I see a '400 Bad Request' from jitsi. Anyone else?
13:02:33 [dmitriz]
seems fine for me
13:02:36 [dmitriz]
what address you using?
13:02:56 [bengo]
Cleared my cookies and it worked!
13:03:01 [dmitriz]
oh good
13:03:39 [snarfed]
snarfed has joined #social
13:04:04 [dmitriz_]
dmitriz_ has joined #social
13:04:08 [dmitriz_]
13:04:16 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:04:25 [angelo]
angelo has joined #social
13:04:52 [manton]
manton has joined #social
13:05:18 [tantek]
13:05:24 [bengo]
13:05:25 [pfefferle]
13:06:08 [bengo]
(I forget how to work the bot)
13:06:22 [aaronpk]
13:06:26 [bengo]
13:06:50 [bengo]
(I like how in CCG the chairs just start asking experienced people 1 by 1 to scribe and make them say 'no im not willing to')
13:07:07 [dmitriz_]
ahahah yeah we should get a scribe list
13:07:45 [angelo]
13:07:45 [bengo]
james: <is reading from the FAQ posted earlier>
13:07:50 [snarfed]
Zakim, agenda?
13:07:50 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
13:07:54 [bengo]
james: is there anyone with feedback on whether a WG is a good idea
13:08:07 [trwnh]
13:08:07 [capjamesg]
bengo I'm reading my private notes on Notion :D
13:08:09 [bengo]
nightpool: I have a question. You said CG is empowered to present errata for AP/etc standards
13:08:21 [dmitriz_]
13:08:21 [snarfed]
are we using Jitsi hands or Zakim for floor control?
13:08:34 [dmitriz_]
either is fine
13:08:37 [dmitriz_]
we can do just jitsi
13:08:40 [bengo]
nightpool: There is not a super clear path forward to getting the documents updated with errata. does anyone have thoughts on that? I personally dont think there is a huge need for a new WG. BUt getting that power we have clarified could be helpful
13:08:43 [snarfed]
13:09:02 [capjamesg]
w3c process:
13:09:09 [bengo]
tantek: It depends on nature of errata. W3C process from FAQ links to it
13:09:21 [Loqi_]
[preview] [Elika J. Etemad / fantasai] W3C Process Document
13:09:22 [bengo]
tantek: If errata is editorial, w3c team can confirm that, and they are able to update specs on
13:09:40 [bengo]
tantek: If there are meaningful changes to features, that needs to be a WG and it could be existing, new, rechartered WG
13:09:54 [bengo]
tantek: That could be one use case for a WG would be to incorporate errata and update specs accordingly
13:10:17 [bengo]
evan: the process we have to update the doc without charting a WG. We can incorporate errata in an editor's draft and submit that to the staff of the w3c.
13:10:32 [bengo]
evan: They have offered to update the document for editorial suggestions
13:10:41 [bengo]
evan: spelling errors, mistaken syntax in examples, things like that
13:10:51 [tantek]
13:10:53 [bengo]
nightpool: Which we don't have an inconsiderable number of
13:10:59 [bengo]
evan: Last I checked 5-10 known errors
13:11:07 [bengo]
evan: That's an estimate. I can give full number if needed
13:11:42 [bengo]
dmitri: As evan mentioned, we have the ability to update documents w/ errata by handing a draft over to the w3c staff. What we don't have is the ability to make substantive changes or breaking changes.
13:11:44 [risotto]
risotto has joined #social
13:11:55 [capjamesg]
+1 re: documenting unclear parts
13:11:57 [bengo]
dmitri: It would be great to document some of the unclear parts of the as2/ap spec that reflect the years of experience since then
13:12:10 [bengo]
dmitri: Evan can explain more. That would be one reason to do a narrowly scoped WG
13:12:18 [tantek]
FYI: last week's Social CG meeting minutes as context for new folks:
13:12:24 [bengo]
dmitri: Also to update based on implementation experience of ap/as2
13:12:44 [dmitriz_]
13:12:48 [bengo]
evan: I'd like to reply. We do have some recorded issues with AP/AS2.
13:13:01 [Christian]
Christian has joined #social
13:13:04 [bengo]
evan: They are technically normative. For example, the followers collection. spec doesn't say those elements should be unique
13:13:32 [bengo]
evan: Assumption has been made that it should be unique. BUt there is a question. Having spec and guidance may be normative but may reflect actual use. could be helpful
13:13:45 [tantek]
13:13:54 [bengo]
james: I think goal of the WG is making the job of implementors as easy as possible based on the experience we have over the years
13:13:55 [dmitriz_]
13:14:06 [nightpool]
ack tantek
13:14:28 [bengo]
tantek: +1 to what evan said. I think it would be very useful to capture the substantive changes we've learned from impl experience and deployments. It would help readers.
13:14:33 [bengo]
evan: I +1 what evan said about ap/as2 updates
13:14:36 [bengo]
*sorry tantek)
13:14:39 [sivy]
sivy has joined #social
13:14:46 [bengo]
tantek: There are also changes for webmention et al
13:14:58 [bengo]
tantek: There are extensions that are interoperably implemented that could be rolled into the core spec
13:15:12 [bengo]
aaron: There have been minor updates to micropub spec itself
13:15:35 [capjamesg]
13:15:42 [bengo]
aaron: IndieAuth was a note published by group, not a full on rec. But it has gone through many changes since published. there is another opportunity there
13:15:47 [tantek]
note: substantive features include but are not limited to "breaking" features. you can have plenty of substantive changes like new features that are not breaking in any way
13:16:00 [bengo]
dmitri: I'd love to hear from other members of the community.
13:16:18 [bengo]
dmitri: We have new faces. This topic has spread to socialhub, fediverse, etc.
13:16:36 [bengo]
Lisa: I am professionally working on portability. Personally a fediverse user and enthusiast.
13:16:52 [bengo]
Lisa: I think it's great to look at errata, rel=me, indieauth. plenty and very useful
13:16:56 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
13:17:05 [plh]
plh has joined #social
13:17:05 [bengo]
Lisa: Then maybe after that we can work on portability. Let's do easy stuff first
13:17:07 [tantek]
+1 Lisa
13:17:31 [bengo]
Manton: Thanks everyone for work that got us to this point
13:17:41 [plh]
13:17:43 [bengo]
Manton: Don't think we should be too narrow. I think I've implemented every recommendation and note
13:17:44 [hasanhaja]
hasanhaja has joined #social
13:18:08 [bengo]
dmitri: I'd like to provide a counter proposal for specifically a narrow scope
13:18:21 [bengo]
dmitri: consider holding off on a WG right now. Just incorporate errata using CG process outlined.
13:18:32 [bengo]
dmitri: OR only charter a WG with narrow scope of errata + clarifications
13:18:53 [bengo]
aaron: My understanding from what I've heard of changes is that they would not fall under errata scope
13:19:27 [capjamesg]
bengo: strongly prefer not having a large social web working group, didn't lead to collaboration vs. competition over limited air time
13:19:49 [capjamesg]
bengo: provide implementation guidance -- the best way on a timeline and avoiding competitive dynamics is to do it in an AP working group charter
13:20:09 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
13:20:14 [capjamesg]
bengo: this pattern has worked for high stakes specs
13:20:24 [bengo]
thanks james
13:20:42 [bumblefudge_]
bumblefudge_ has joined #social
13:20:49 [nightpool]
capjamesg++ for scribing
13:20:49 [Loqi]
capjamesg has 2 karma in this channel over the last year (129 in all channels)
13:20:49 [bengo]
tantek: As a minor correction. SocialWG was not a large group. We typically had under a dozen people that came to meetings regularly
13:20:53 [dmitriz_]
ben means large in the specs / communities sense, not people sense
13:20:59 [bumblefudge_]
also the vcwg does lots of it's work in ccg task forces
13:21:01 [bengo]
tantek: We did have small subsets of the group work on different things
13:21:17 [bengo]
tantek: And in the group we had cross-technology and bridging discussions. It worked quite well
13:21:21 [bumblefudge_]
it also outsourced one big time suck to rdf canonicalization wg
13:21:30 [capjamesg]
Bob in chat: "I strongly support a "SocialWeb" Working Group. If that hasn't worked in the past, we should be trying to make it work in the future."
13:22:03 [bumblefudge_]
portability task force could stay in cg? it probably won't neednormative changes, could just be extensions
13:22:06 [bengo]
tantek: WG will often create a task force to work on a specific technology so that if people want to work on only one or two specifications can work in a TF which is empowered to work in the WG. That way people can pick there own level of participation. It empowers folks to get work done where they want, esp those who want to work on both
13:22:25 [dmitriz_]
+1 to portability TF to stay in CG
13:22:34 [bumblefudge_]
we have an extension mechanism that seems to work well to allow staggering adoption across large userbase implementations
13:22:36 [dmitriz_]
exactly the kind of things CGs are useful for
13:22:47 [bengo]
tantek: I would say that one output of the group was a high degree of semantic interop between AP and webmention. It has enabled bridgy (sees snarfed) which has enabled things like which seamlessly suppose multiple protocols without forcing the user to decide
13:22:50 [bumblefudge_]
rather than major version forced sunsetting
13:22:57 [bengo]
tantek: It's hard to emphasize how important that was to keep things working
13:23:11 [bengo]
tantek: I would like to see more collaboration on not competition
13:23:20 [bengo]
james: I'd like to see that too
13:23:48 [bengo]
dmitri: I'd like to +1 to what bengo said that it might make a lot of sense for IndieAuth to charter a WG specifically for that or other IndieWeb specs narrowly focused on the indieweb specs.
13:23:59 [bengo]
dmitri: There is a lot of benefit to separating the streams into narrow WG
13:24:08 [bengo]
dmitri: +1 to what ben said
13:24:26 [tantek]
dmitri, point being you can create Task Forces to do such narrow focuses, without losing the collaboration of a broader Working Group
13:24:40 [capjamesg]
13:24:41 [bengo]
manton: I was going to say this anyway but it also responds. One concrete example in favor of more broad is IndieAuth. For example, indieweb proposed an Oauth2 profile for ActivityPub. To me there is a lot of overlap
13:24:51 [bengo]
manton: I feel they should be discussed at the same time
13:25:00 [dmitriz_]
auth should absolutely stay out of scope, of any wg...
13:25:03 [bengo]
manton: I feel benefits of everyone talking together
13:25:12 [bengo]
(bengo notes that more people can talk together in SWICG without a WG)
13:25:17 [bumblefudge__]
bumblefudge__ has joined #social
13:25:29 [BobWyman]
BobWyman has joined #social
13:25:38 [tantek]
present+ bumblefudge_
13:25:41 [tantek]
present+ BobWyman
13:25:47 [bengo]
aaron: We should generalize the auth. There could be a generalized indieauth for indieauth, did auth. Maybe there could be a common API for all of them as a subgroup
13:25:51 [bengo]
(aaron gray)
13:26:08 [tantek]
present+ capjamesg
13:26:18 [bengo]
aaronp: With my oauth hat on. I am editor of oauth 2.1 spec and in IETF groups on it. I know there is a lot of discussions about keeping auth out of group
13:26:26 [bengo]
aaronp: There are views about keeping auth out of specs
13:26:32 [capjamesg]
+1 re: inventing new things
13:26:38 [capjamesg]
*not inventing new things
13:26:47 [tantek]
present+ Lisa_Dusseault
13:26:50 [ckolderup]
13:26:50 [bengo]
aaronp: oauth is great. You kind of need to profile it to work with indieauth and other social web things. You have to profile it if you're going to use it
13:27:05 [bengo]
aaronp: IndieAuth and evan's profile do have a lot of similarities already
13:27:07 [dmitriz_]
that seems like a job for the IETF OAuth WG. (or the IETF GNAP wg)
13:27:19 [bengo]
aaronp: Those similarities are making their way into the IETF discussions as well
13:27:40 [bengo]
aaronp: Those discussions should be done in concert with the oauth discussion at IETF and any auth work here should cooperate with that gruop
13:28:17 [bengo]
aaronp: I disagree with aaron gray with making a broader scope for auth. This works as is with what mastodon is doing and its on the right track but we need to better formalize
13:28:19 [tantek]
+1 aaronpk, solidify how Mastodon uses OAuth and IndieAuth uses OAuth
13:28:36 [bengo]
bumblefudge_: there is a slight difference between a CG writing a profile as a note and a WG saying 'this is what AP is'
13:28:47 [bengo]
bumblefudge_: it brings auth into scope to do it in WG
13:29:22 [tantek]
13:29:29 [bengo]
bumblefudge_: I agree having auth profiles soon is a good idea. Everyone agrees hardening and having eyes on authn profiles. But that's different than doing auth in a social wg that could pick one way. It would be nice if implementations could choose which makes sense for them from CG profiles
13:29:50 [bengo]
bumblefudge_: Evan at TPAC proposed to choose things that get implemented by large implementations from the CG profiles. Are those then candidates for future WG
13:29:53 [lisarue]
lisarue has joined #social
13:30:36 [bengo]
bumblefudge_: there was a period where those were happening in isolations without hope of being blessed as official options. If we open a path for extensions that take off and trickly through major implementations, that would be my preferred way of doing auth. There should not be WG fiat made by 10 members of a WG. I'd rather see extension processes be open and forified and taken seriously
13:31:01 [bengo]
bumblefudge__: everyone who started a note or FEP and didn't know this would happen should have at least a few months to update their note for consideration by SWICG
13:31:10 [bengo]
bumblefudge__: I want this to be community driven and adoption driven vs expertise driven
13:31:16 [tantek]
q+ to reply to bumblefudge__ and give example of Immersive Web CG/WG as noted in last week's meeting:
13:31:44 [bengo]
bumblefudge__: that's a reason I prefer to stay in the SWICG. I dont want this to just go into w3c WG and have techniques be done because W3C say so, vs process of community consideration and implementation
13:31:50 [bengo]
bumblefudge__: I worry about 'pre design'
13:32:07 [bengo]
james: IndieWeb is an example of a good community
13:32:14 [bengo]
james: where people implement and collaborate
13:32:31 [bumblefudge__]
honestly I was at fediforum yesterday and lots of people had never heard of FEPs or NOTES :(
13:32:45 [bengo]
nightpool: with authn, one thing important to remember is that the original wg left authn out because it wasn't clear what would lead to adoption or be practical
13:32:45 [capjamesg]
Evan in chat: "I have to drop. I support a WG with scope of errata plus clarification . I oppose any editor's draft with normative changes. "
13:32:51 [bumblefudge__]
we have some outreach to do to bring people (back) in
13:32:56 [capjamesg]
[tantek] in chat: "Evan, clarifications can be normative though, presumably curious how you are distinguishing those "
13:33:04 [bumblefudge__] might get widely deployed?
13:33:09 [bengo]
nightpool: to some extent that has happen. there are two major s2s auth implementations. there are less c2s interop implementations of auth
13:33:27 [bengo]
nightpool: there are clear extensions in teh spec we have for community extensions for authn. I just want to point out we have extension points in the spec open for CG notes
13:33:39 [bengo]
nightpool: we dont need to make a spec change for auth. We just need CG notes for community guidance
13:33:45 [bumblefudge__]
+1 to guidance and profiles and documentation of all kinds !
13:34:23 [bengo]
nightpool: I also want to note wrt FEP protocols. I agree with fact that we need to look at what's deployed and feasible. Another dynamic at play is there is low incentive to implement an FEP when there's no clear guidance on whether that will be the most interoperable solution
13:34:38 [bumblefudge__]
well if no second implementation adopts it, sure
13:34:43 [bengo]
nightpool: in some ways a FEP is punting interop. i.e. standardize with what one project has done vs coming to consensus on what others could/should do
13:34:54 [bengo]
nightpool: Observation of process in the past is that it is lacking in that
13:35:01 [dmitriz_]
an FEP being opened is just a start of the conversation, though
13:35:08 [bumblefudge__]
the point of a FEP is that no input from other implementations is a guarantee it'll stay single implementation...
13:35:32 [bengo]
nightpool: Whats holding up and hurting FEP process right now is its single implementor discussion/profile. So then its 'which 10 FEPs do you support and how do they conflict with each other' so then there is no guidance for implementors because it didn't seek consensus
13:35:34 [bumblefudge__]
that's a fair critique honestly it takes a lot of nudging to improve the process
13:35:47 [bengo]
nightpool: from pure technical perspective I dont think FEPs are providing clarity as much as documenting what exists
13:35:55 [tantek]
+1 to both nightpool's concerns and what bumblefudge__ said about allowing experimentation to continue in FEPs
13:35:58 [bengo]
capjamesg: I'm just starting to impl AP so I am in that bucket now
13:36:00 [bumblefudge__]
we need to PR the with that guidance Maybe
13:36:36 [bengo]
dmitriz_: I think authentication is a really good time to highlight the role of a Community Group, which evan and tantek mention is to produce reports and hand them off to Working Groups. There are already authn Working Groups, including IETF oauth and OpenID and OpenID Foundation
13:36:58 [bengo]
dmitriz_: It would be possible for SWICG to produce authn notes and hand those to existing qualified groups. There is no need for a WG for auth
13:37:09 [bumblefudge__]
but huge +1 to Aaron helping us harden both profiles!!!
13:37:18 [bengo]
dmitriz_: From what I've seen, FEPs are just a way of starting a discussion about what worked for someone, discuss, make PRs for a FEP
13:37:20 [manton]
Just wanted to clarify for people reading the transcript later, that above (:24) I meant to compare Evan's FEP (also linked above) with the IndieAuth note, and potential overlap that could be discussed if the scope isn't too narrow to only one spec.
13:37:31 [bengo]
dmitriz_: It is very much a living/start of implementor conversation
13:37:53 [bengo]
tantek: +1 nightpools concerns about single implementor extensions
13:38:09 [bengo]
tantek: I want to preserve the broad community aprticipation around FEPs and other communities
13:38:19 [bumblefudge__]
I meant aaronpk sorry
13:38:21 [bengo]
tantek: one thing we discussed at TPAC was how w3c has evolved since SocialWG
13:38:55 [bengo]
tantek: one pattern that has emerged is one CG that incubates, looks at relevant things, etc. And a WG that looks at (by the judgement of the in-group), lifts changes into the WG
13:38:57 [tantek]
13:39:22 [pz]
pz has joined #social
13:39:24 [bengo]
tantek: Some participant brought up the immersive web wg where they have both a CG and WG and are able to do the best of all worlds
13:39:44 [bengo]
tantek: They are able to keep creative experimentation in CG, but once there are multiple implementors interested, they can lift to WG
13:40:00 [bengo]
tantek: then people dont have to wonder what to implement, they can just look at the core spec authored by the WG
13:40:21 [bengo]
kevin: WG specs are documentation not legislation
13:40:47 [bengo]
kevin: the goal is to document what has been done not to specify how new people should implement
13:40:55 [tantek]
present+ Kevin_Marks
13:41:01 [tantek]
+1 Kevin_Marks
13:41:04 [bengo]
kevin: people who have done the work bridging lots of things
13:41:04 [capjamesg]
+1 -- implementers ultimately decide whether to implement part of a spec.
13:41:28 [bengo]
kevin: A big chunk of what happened last time but wasn't always visible was looking at 17 different APIs and looking at how they abstractly did things
13:41:37 [snarfed]
13:41:40 [bengo]
kevin: that was a big chunk in activitystreams was abstracting amongst common patterns at big sites
13:41:45 [capjamesg]
(I think) the doc authored by Amy to which Kevin is referring:
13:41:48 [bengo]
kevin: Sometimes it is boring and involves bickering
13:42:02 [bengo]
kevin: but at the end there is good content and ways of accomplishing those use cases
13:42:09 [bengo]
kevin: We can do convergence at the spec level
13:42:20 [bengo]
kevin: It's like classic xkcd about 14 probelms and then 15. there were 7 and then 3
13:42:38 [bengo]
kevin: People can say there was fighting at the end. But I'd say we did as good as we could by the end
13:42:56 [tantek]
present+ Ryan_Barrett
13:43:01 [bengo]
kevin: e.g. something the group got right was a way for people who really like RDF and people like really like JSON to each have their way
13:43:14 [bengo]
aaronpk: I think we might be talking about different things on authentication
13:43:25 [bengo]
aaronpk: I'm not saying the WG should be inventing new mechanisms
13:43:33 [bengo]
aaronpk: There is not a scenario where you can just use oauth or just use openid
13:43:45 [bengo]
aaronpk: you have to make more decisions and those concerns sometimes overlap with wider communities
13:43:52 [bengo]
aaronpk: in those cases those discussions should be bridged
13:44:07 [bengo]
aaronpk: but there will also be some cases where narrow scoping things are only relevant to activitystreams/activitypub/micropub
13:44:11 [tantek]
+1 aaronpk, good opportunities for noting liaison relationships with other groups/communities
13:44:19 [bengo]
aaronpk: sometimes those other groups dont care
13:44:31 [bengo]
aaronpk: I've done this before. I worked with FTX (FDX?) on banking
13:44:58 [bengo]
aaronpk: but there are some things they need and specific conerns they need about regulated banking that dont apply anywhere else. and in some cases they have developed their own profiles for their use cases
13:45:17 [lisarue]
I'm sure we can get good review from oauth WG contributors
13:45:18 [dmitriz_]
just to clarify - I wasn't suggesting we'd invent new things from scratch. just the opposite - the CG can come up with the Authn profile
13:45:19 [bengo]
aaronpk: it's not that we are inventing new things from scratch. but we should document how to use them in our protocols
13:45:35 [dmitriz_]
and check it against / liaise with the IETF authn WGs
13:45:37 [bengo]
snarfed: oauth profile is 1 profile. one example is authn in activitypub itself. it's imfamously unspecified
13:45:51 [aaronpk]
s/FTX (FDX?) on banking/FDX on open banking
13:46:00 [bengo]
snarfed: community has settled on HTTP Signatures (cabbage not httpbis) for s2s
13:46:22 [dmitriz_]
HTTP Sig is another great example - there's already an IETF WG working on it! :)
13:46:22 [dmitriz_]
13:46:26 [capjamesg]
As a new implementer, I have been confused by HTTP Signatures.
13:46:36 [capjamesg]
We shouldn't invent it, but I think I'm asking for more docs :)
13:46:44 [dmitriz_]
100%, it's super confusing. and yeah, definitely docs are needed
13:46:46 [bengo]
nightpool: on legislating vs documenting. I want to be clear that it is always going to be a balance because there will always be implementors that will await clear guidance. The goal of the group should always be to document and work with what is out there already, and at the end there also needs to be editorial guidance
13:46:53 [dmitriz_]
which the CG can provide; WGs have no monopoly on better docs :)
13:46:53 [bengo]
nightpool: you have to do the work about coming from 15 standards to one
13:47:01 [melvster_]
melvster_ has joined #social
13:47:16 [bumblefudge__]
to be fair Evan did offer to mature the FEP process a week ago
13:47:16 [bengo]
nightpool: To me the FEP process is too far on the documentation side because there's no room for documenting approaches and editorial guidance
13:47:19 [snarfed]
dmitriz: right! my point isn't that we'd work on HTTP Sigs independently, only that we'd work on saying _in AP_ that it uses HTTP Sigs, details, etc
13:47:25 [bumblefudge__]
huge +1 to Evans proposal
13:47:30 [bengo]
capjamesg: one point brought up on Mailing List was inclusion.
13:47:35 [aaronpk]
FYI http signatures are well on the way to RFC status at IETF now, just going through last reviews
13:47:45 [bengo]
capjamesg: to the extent we can all make people aware of the channels where people are talking about this stuff, that is all the better
13:47:48 [nightpool]
s/documenting approaches/simplifying approaches/
13:47:48 [bumblefudge__]
13:47:56 [Loqi]
13:48:01 [tantek]
q+ to ask if the CG can help with discussion of FEPs and also to start discussing broader use-cases
13:48:12 [tantek]
+1 nightpool
13:48:19 [bengo]
capjamesg: when I've been implementing it hasn't been clear to me where FEPs apply vs the spec. Where should I be focusing my time? what's normative? as an aspiring implementor it's hard for me. Invite your friends to the gruop
13:48:22 [dmitriz_]
ooh, +1 to that, Tantek (CG to help w FEP discussion)
13:48:41 [bengo]
capjamesg: I'm hoping we can create a forum where all can discuss things. Good topic calls like the CSAM topic call earlier this year
13:48:54 [bengo]
capjamesg: also meeting with other communities like indieweb. i think we should all be working together
13:49:26 [bengo]
tantek: good points nightpool I am glad you're here. I have also observed what you expressed. There is this braod spectrum between super bold implementors who write one FEP and that's there thing vs implementors who jump forward on things.
13:49:39 [bengo]
tantek: and yes there will be implementors who stand on the sidelines and wait for things in core
13:49:46 [bengo]
tantek: i have seen that over 20-30 years of standards work
13:50:15 [bumblefudge_]
bumblefudge_ has joined #social
13:50:17 [bengo]
tantek: Let's consider. Can we encourage folks for people to use the SWICG to get people to advocate for FEPs in a multi-stakeholder interop
13:50:30 [bengo]
tantek: I wonder what would be a good FEP/socialcg interaction or am I off base there
13:50:51 [bengo]
tantek: there are a lot of discussions in a broader sense happening at w3c beyond who is in this room. There are 40 odd groups and new ones proposed all the time
13:51:06 [bengo]
tantek: one use case is personal data stores
13:51:15 [bengo]
tantek: Some may be aware of solid
13:51:29 [bengo]
tantek: i was under the impression it was about social but now it seems like it has shifted to personal data stores
13:51:33 [bumblefudge_]
yeah the FEPs range from "here's what i did" to very collaborative from the first issue. we should clarify only the latter will ever make it to main :)
13:51:40 [bengo]
tantek: i was explaining how you can use activitypub for that with other vocabularies
13:51:46 [bengo]
tantek: e.g. you could use it to edit any URL potentially
13:52:08 [bengo]
tantek: while we are interested in social use cases, these technologies may also address other use cases. I'm looking for a path to harmonizing these efforts
13:52:09 [bumblefudge_]
evans proposal was great can we all review it and 3xpand it and ratify it?
13:52:27 [bengo]
tantek: I dont want to pick a winner but i want to harmonize semantics that might allow for interop e.g. verb semantics property semantics etc
13:52:41 [bengo]
tantek: this happens at w3c. groups are chartered to solve use cases
13:52:55 [bengo]
tantek: I encourage that. Keeping it broad. calling it social wg or something else. not specific to a technology
13:53:07 [bengo]
dmitriz_: +1 tantek on how CG can help with FEP process
13:53:13 [bengo]
dmitriz_: and helping get some to consensus
13:53:20 [tantek]
s/braod spectrum/broad spectrum
13:53:34 [bengo]
dmitriz_: I want to add that HTTP signatures is an excellent example of rthe power of CGs. There is already an existing WG at IETF bringing HTTP Signatures to a standard
13:54:03 [bumblefudge_]
normative versus nonnormative distinction
13:54:03 [bengo]
dmitriz_: It doesn't need to be in scope for a Social Web WG. But the CG can make better example of where HTTP Sigs where before, where now, how to use them for max interop with social software. No WG is needed for that item
13:54:43 [bengo]
aaronpk: the way HTTP Signatures work is that its a framework. It defines how to pick parts of the message to sign. I'm a fan of the approach and its good
13:55:01 [tantek]
13:55:01 [snarfed]
13:55:02 [bengo]
aaronpk: You have to decide which things to sign. And that needs to be written down as a profile and decided upon and agreed to by community
13:55:02 [Loqi]
aaronpk has 1 karma in this channel over the last year (100 in all channels)
13:55:03 [tantek]
ack tantek
13:55:05 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to reply to bumblefudge__ and give example of Immersive Web CG/WG as noted in last week's meeting: and to ask
13:55:06 [Zakim]
... if the CG can help with discussion of FEPs and also to start discussing broader use-cases
13:55:26 [bengo]
aaronpk: So to use it in activitypub we need a spec on how to sign the messages. Can't only delegate out to IETF. CG does need to do some publishing too
13:55:36 [bengo]
tantek: I want to propose some next steps
13:55:41 [nightpool]
we also need backwards-compatibility guidance.... upgrading the network from draft-cavage is a very tricky problem without a straightforward solution.
13:55:53 [trwnh]
13:55:54 [dmitriz_]
+1 nightpool, yeah. upgrade guidance
13:56:13 [bengo]
tantek: one step forward might be starting a wiki page in SocialCG wiki. Listing specific items for consideration
13:56:23 [bengo]
tantek: WG usually has to talk about its scope, deliverables, liason
13:56:34 [trwnh]
i've seen it said that http sigs alone are a reason for activitypub to fail
13:56:36 [bengo]
tantek: I suggest starting a wiki page that is not definitive
13:56:46 [bengo]
tantek: get it down in one place and guage support. one proposal
13:57:09 [bengo]
capjamesg: people interested in contributing to a WG should put their names forward
13:57:23 [tantek]
we can capture scope (areas), deliverables (specifications), liaisons (which other orgs we should coordinate with)
13:57:30 [BobWyman]
I suggest that the Working Group should be "broad but shallow." It should be a SocialWeb WG, not just ActivityPub, but it should be limited to eratta and clarifications, not addressing new issues (i.e. not deep).
13:57:34 [bengo]
capjamesg: rather than focusing on specific scope, we talked of so many things, i'd like to know whos interested in being in a WG
13:57:55 [bengo]
tantek: anyone should be able to access wiki
13:58:04 [bengo]
tantek: there shouldn't be a problem of access but if there is we'll fix it
13:59:08 [bengo]
capjamesg: No time made for TF discussion on list
13:59:26 [bengo]
capjamesg: I'll make sure minutes are posted in right place
13:59:33 [bengo]
capjamesg: If you have messages for chairs, message us
13:59:47 [bengo]
tantek: Thanks for those who woke up early.
13:59:52 [bengo]
nightpool: Thanks james for running meeting
14:00:04 [capjamesg]
Thank you bengo for taking notes throughout!
14:00:05 [ckolderup]
thanks james and thanks ben! thanks everyone!
14:00:12 [aaronpk]
bengo++ for scribing
14:00:13 [Loqi]
bengo has 1 karma over the last year
14:00:23 [capjamesg]
bengo++ that was a _big_ help!
14:00:23 [Loqi]
bengo has 2 karma over the last year
14:00:26 [snarfed]
snarfed has left #social
14:00:33 [nightpool]
14:00:33 [Loqi]
bengo has 3 karma over the last year
14:00:34 [bengo]
14:00:48 [capjamesg]
And thanks to everyone who attended! The notes will be distributed via the mailing list, GitHub, and W3C website.
14:00:48 [bengo]
(any advice scribe bot experts? Do I need to type a thing.)
14:01:43 [tantek]
Zakim, end meeting
14:01:43 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been dmitriz_, tantek, bengo, pfefferle, aaronpk, angelo, trwnh, plh, bumblefudge_, BobWyman, capjamesg, Lisa_Dusseault, ckolderup, Kevin_Marks,
14:01:46 [Zakim]
... Ryan_Barrett
14:01:46 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:01:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Zakim
14:01:55 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, tantek; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
14:01:55 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #social
14:01:57 [capjamesg]
Thank you tantek.
14:02:01 [tantek]
s/(any advice scribe bot experts? Do I need to type a thing.)//
14:02:15 [bengo]
Is this accurate still?
14:03:39 [bengo]
14:03:55 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:03:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
14:06:42 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
14:13:34 [pfefferle]
pfefferle has joined #social
14:14:54 [tantek]
s/evan: I +1 what/tantek: I +1 what
14:15:00 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:15:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
14:15:32 [tantek]
s/*sorry tantek)//
14:15:38 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:15:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
14:24:43 [tantek]
s/there were 7 and then 3/Except in the SocialWG there were 17 and we got them down to 3
14:25:08 [tantek]
s/indieweb proposed an/Evan proposed an
14:25:19 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:25:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
14:25:41 [tantek]
bengo++ for scribing!
14:25:41 [Loqi]
bengo has 4 karma over the last year
14:27:54 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
14:35:58 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
14:42:33 [tantek]
s/more collaboration on not competition/more collaboration ongoing, not competition
14:43:33 [tantek]
s/nightpools concerns/nightpool's concerns
14:43:45 [tantek]
14:45:08 [tantek]
s/relevant things, etc. /relevant things, and uses some criteria like multi-implementor interest, multiple prototypes, or especially interoperable implementations to propos uplifting to the WG.
14:45:47 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
14:46:19 [tantek]
s/looks at (by the judgement of the in-group),/looks at the work of the CG, especially such uplift proposals,
14:47:21 [tantek]
s/lifts changes into the WG/and decides by consensus whether to uplift proposed specs or incorporate extensions into core specs in the WG
14:47:54 [tantek]
s/Some participant brought up/A participant in last week's Social CG meeting brought up
14:48:10 [tantek]
s/immersive web wg/Immersive Web
14:48:15 [pfefferle]
pfefferle has joined #social
14:50:43 [tantek]
s/i was under the impression it was about social/It was originally about social web hence the name solid is short for "social linked data"
14:50:51 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:50:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
14:52:16 [tantek]
s/i was explaining how you can use activitypub for that with other vocabularies/I met with a few Solid folks last week at TPAC and noted how existing technologies work for the personal data store use-case also, like you can use ActivityPub with other vocabularies, you can use MicroPub with other vocabularies
14:53:49 [tantek]
s/could use it to edit any URL potentially/could use ActivityPub or Micropub to edit any URL potentially
14:54:14 [tantek]
s/verb semantics/protocol verb semantics
14:54:55 [tantek]
s/solve use cases/solve use cases and problem areas, rather than specific technologies
14:55:27 [tantek]
s/deliverables, liason/deliverables, liaisons
14:59:53 [tantek]
s/guage support. one proposal/gauge support for various items. that's one proposal for how we can move forward
15:05:49 [pfefferle]
pfefferle has joined #social
15:05:50 [tantek]
s|Is this accurate still?||
15:06:01 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:06:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
15:13:00 [pfefferle]
pfefferle has joined #social
16:01:57 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
16:32:19 [tantek]
16:32:27 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:32:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
16:35:57 [tantek]
s/aaron: There have been minor updates/aaronpk: There have been minor updates
16:36:11 [tantek]
s/aaron: IndieAuth/aaronpk: IndieAuth
16:36:31 [tantek]
s/aaron: My understanding/aaronpk: My understanding
16:36:41 [tantek]
present+ Aaron_Gray
16:37:09 [tantek]
s/aaron: We should generalize the auth/Aaron_Gray: We should generalize the auth
16:37:23 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:37:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
16:39:06 [tantek]
s/bumblefudge__: /bumblefudge_: /g
16:39:53 [tantek]
16:40:29 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:40:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
16:41:50 [tantek]
present+ eprodrom
16:41:58 [tantek]
16:42:19 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:42:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
16:43:08 [tantek]
16:43:44 [tantek]
present+ Manton
16:43:57 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
16:44:04 [tantek]
present+ nightpool
16:44:40 [tantek]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:44:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tantek
17:50:52 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
18:31:49 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
18:57:12 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
19:19:15 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
20:15:48 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
20:18:59 [sivy]
sivy has joined #social
20:32:50 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
21:33:11 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
22:31:06 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
23:19:09 [AaronNGray]
AaronNGray has joined #social
23:44:26 [treora]
treora has joined #social