SocialCG/2017-06-07/minutes

From W3C Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

W3C

- DRAFT -

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

07 Jun 2017

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
geppy, MMN-work, cwebber, aaronpk, nightpool, ajordan, jaywink, ben_thatmustbeme, saranix, astronouth, wilkie, cwebber2, astronouth7303
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
MMN-work, cwebber2, geppy, geppy1

Contents



<MMN-work> nightpool: I'm too eager!!!

<Loqi> geppy: ajordan left you a message 6 days, 22 hours ago: I'm in love with octobox.io. thanks again omg

<aaronpk> hm we need to figure out how to tell trackbot this is the CG meeting not the WG meeting

<geppy> :)

<geppy> volunteer for what?

<aaronpk> scribing

<ben_thatmustbeme> Meeting: Social Web Incubator Community Group Teleconference

<geppy> if not, I can scribe (and just type whatever's said in Mumble?)

<ben_thatmustbeme> i wrote something up on the wiki cwebber2

<cwebber2> scribenick: MMN-work

<aaronpk> scribing details https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG#Scribing

<ben_thatmustbeme> https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG#Scribing

cwebber2: First item is social working group update. I wasn't there, maybe aaron is better to represent it

<ajordan> MMN-work: if someone is continuing to speak prefix with `... `

<ajordan> ben_thatmustbeme and I were on the call

<cwebber2> Expressing intent of "where" a message shows up (direct messages? etc?) See: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/196#issuecomment-304958984

<Loqi> [cwebber] Note that Pump.io already does this, and I think this may be the answer: inbox is still used for federation, but multiple streams can be presented to the user in terms of inbox / the "major" feed (which is all the main posts and comments and etc) / t...

<nightpool> Mastodon now highlights direct messages, but does not seperate them

cwebber2: First discussion is "where" a message shows up, this is regarding who a message is addressed to and where in UIs and feeds to show it (scoping)
... But it seems everyone seem happy about it, so unless anyone has something to say maybe we can skip it

(missed who): what was the resolution?

cwebber2: Maybe I'm wrong about there being a resolution, but having a flag may be the best way to do this instead of a type

nightpool: Having a separate type would fail fast, so there are benefits to that. What are your thoughts on having separate inboxes?

<nightpool> to clarify: I meant seperate inboxes to post to

cwebber2: An inbox serves two purposes in ActivityPub, a place where people post TO and where you read FROM.

<saranix> I thought we were pretty solid on calling it a "disposition"?

cwebber2: One option here on "where" is like a "follow" that maybe shouldn't show up in all feeds. [I missed the other option]

<nightpool> It appears I'm totally misremembering this.

<saranix> "post" vs "mail", or "deliver" vs "notify"

<geppy> nightpool: you mean using a fragment specifier to express an intent to address a subinbox? as in geppy.im/me#special-inbox ?

<nightpool> Right

<nightpool> I thought people had suggested that in the issue

<nightpool> but can't find it now

cwebber2: I'm having a little hard time keeping up. I'll keep trying for a while and focus more but we'll see how it goes. .)

cwebber: How about having separate types or different filtered inboxes?

<nightpool> I'm +1 on that

<cwebber2> +1

How about a poll, not a resolution, regarding types/flags vs. inboxes?

cwebber: How about a poll, not a resolution, regarding types/flags vs. inboxes?

<saranix> I don't think that's right. The receiver organizes their boxes, that makes it sound like the sender is organizing for them

cwebber: The receiver would still filter and inboxes would only be informative

<cwebber2> saranix, ^^^

<geppy> +0

<cwebber2> the properties would be informative to how the server can filter into the sub-inbox read endpoints

<jaywink> > The receiver organizes their boxes, that makes it sound like the sender is organizing for them <--- agree

<ajordan> +1

<saranix> still causing cognitive dissonance.

<cwebber2> saranix, are you -0 then?

<saranix> -1

<saranix> for inboxes

<saranix> I think flag is the way to go

<geppy> I feel like an informative flag is ideal (re: receiver or their useragent organizes their own inboxes), rather than a type that's more "you must do this".

<nightpool> Uh we're talking about flags

<cwebber2> saranix: this *is* going to be a flag

<geppy> +1

<aaronpk> saranix, are you able to join the mumble call?

<saranix> aaronpk: no

cwebber: There is confusion on IRC. It would be a flag.

<cwebber2> saranix: it's, the server posts a message like {"@type": "Note", "directMessage": true}

<nightpool> Sorry, this informal proposal is "we either use flags or note types, and *don't* use different inboxes to post to"

<cwebber2> saranix: to the *normal inbox

<nightpool> "but the server that a client is reading from may provide seperate inboxes to read from"

<saranix> this is not clear at on all IRC

<cwebber2> saranix: and then the server could decide to have another endpoint that's read *from*, but it's at server's discretion to filter there

<saranix> what is the actual poll question

<cwebber2> saranix: how you are with that solution I just described

<cwebber2> to reiterate:

ajordan: Aren't we talking about the proposal on GitHub [some days] ago?

cwebber: yes, basically

<geppy> (proposal on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/196)

<Loqi> [annando] #196 How to differentiate between posts and private (direct) messages?

<cwebber2> poll question is, how are people with either having a flag like described in https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/196#issuecomment-304958984 <- this comment

<Loqi> [cwebber] Note that Pump.io already does this, and I think this may be the answer: inbox is still used for federation, but multiple streams can be presented to the user in terms of inbox / the "major" feed (which is all the main posts and comments and etc) / t...

<cwebber2> and having the server filter into sub-inbox endpoints, at its discretion, for *reading* (but not for other servers to post to it, they would still post to the same endpoint)

<cwebber2> saranix: I think that matches your flag and the server deciding to post to their boxes thing?

<astronouth7303> +1 flag (in particular, a general `disposition` flag)

<saranix> yes

<saranix> +0

<cwebber2> saranix: \o/ :)

<saranix> I prefer 'disposition':enum to 'directMessage':bool

<wilkie> always enums, never bools

ajordan: We are going to figure out how to have clients figure out where to read from
... Maybe we could have clients create types of inboxes

<wilkie> extensions are going to create inboxes to post to, for instance for private messages

<nightpool> +1 from me on either using note types or flags

cwebber: we're most certainly going to keep supporting sub-inboxes as pump.io does that
... pump.io doesn't have flags though

End to end encryption? https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/225

cwebber: saranix changed to +0 so we have consensus

<Loqi> [brianolson] #225 Needs provisions for encrypting content for privacy

cwebber: Next up is end to end encryption, I'll link it on IRC
... e2e encryption has come up multiple times. We talked about this in the working group two weeks before. We were happy about the idea

<geppy> I'll comment on the GitHub issue that there's an informal SocialCG/SWICG consensus supporting expressing intent to target a subinbox via a flag.

cwebber: e2e encryption means server can't mutate or change messages

<jaywink> shouldn't it mean "read at all"?

cwebber: If you don't need side effects you can do like openpgp email (throwing aside ui issues)
... If you're sending email OpenPGP encrypted, I send an email to you the server will happily pass it along without knowing content
... I think majority of what you want encrypted is content, this can be done with wrapper object that has "encrypted post type" with base64 encrypted message
... and the user on the receiving end could decrypt and they'd be able to display in the client, which would be a json-ld object

<tantek> good morning #social

<Loqi> tantek: ajordan left you a message 20 hours, 20 minutes ago: you forgot to answer saranix's question about why W3C switched to GitHub issues, and from what

cwebber: Main challenge would be attaching keys to things. But as this has come up multiple times and I wanted to discuss in the group

<ajordan> :)

cwebber: One place where this makes it challenging is that web apps/browsers with the existing infrastructure. Easier on mobile apps etc.
... Basically javascript crypto at the moment is pretty bad.

ajordan: To clarify: do you think e2e crypto is difficult in web browsers is difficult or wrapping json-ld?

cwebber: The whole field is difficult
... *dragging tantek in using administrative privileges*
... Do people think e2e enc, despite caveats, it's a reasonable solution? Does it have problems?

<Zakim> MMN-work, you wanted to talk about complexity regarding keys

<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2

MMN-work: I think the complexity of crypto is hard of course, but the main problem is keeping up to date etc, for example openpgp has a terrible ui but having a nice UI won't solve things. eg, what happens if you lose your computer? if you don't have a backup key, do you lose your entire data? this problems are what happen with encryption. this is more okay with otr, because people don't really check fingerprints

<scribe> scribenick: MMN-work

ajordan: So given there are a lot of userworld problems here. Losing your device, things that don't work. How do you follow someone in e2e enc etc?

<tantek> ajordan++ self-hosting as the path forward for privacy

<Loqi> ajordan has 8 karma

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say gotta do better than email, since even nerds I know can't be bothered with all the ceremony and admin crap to make / keep e2e "work" in the federated

ajordan: Something that's been mentioned in WG or maybe on IRC. Issues here are too complex,

tantek: the only point I wanted to make is that I think it's super hard and has a massive failure example in the only federated system that people tried this in (which is email) where not even nerdy nerds don't bother with all the crap to make it work

<ajordan> tantek++

<Loqi> tantek has 59 karma in this channel (347 overall)

<nightpool> tantek: one thing to note is that riot/matrix is attempting to tackle this problem

<ajordan> x1000

tantek: I don't have particularly high hopes for any other group to solve it, especially in a more complex environment like the social web

<Zakim> nightpool, you wanted to talk about federation

tantek: It's a hard problem but I am unsure how much more time we should spend on this. I _want_ e2e encryption but wishes don't make it so. Solve it for the simpler case email first, then solve it for this more complex scenario

nightpool: What we've seen is people organise into their own social groups that have their own trust.
... People organise into small groups so privacy is essentially assured ("I know my admin")

<saranix> I think email is more of a problem because of the keyservers question. We don't exactly have that problem because we are bootstrapping from social "connections" where this information can be exchanged (plus webfinger, etc.)

<tantek> FWIW the UX oddities of Mumble are more than worth the extremely clear audio. It's so much nicer, almost has a calming effect compared to any other telcon service. People sound actually human.

<Zakim> geppy, you wanted to comment on being unqualified to weigh in, and so leaning towards leaving it to extensions

nightpool: We are not necessarily the people here who are qualified to comment on proposed e2e encryption scheme

<wilkie> this is where extensions should be done

geppy: I suggest making it possible for this to be an extension

<astronouth7303> +0 on e2e: I recognize that it is a highly-wanted feature, i'm not sold it can be done in ActivityPub while maintaining desired privacy and without breaking ActivityPub.

cwebber: This was not suggested to be put into the spec but rather as an extension

<wilkie> I think an outline for what an extension's goals are is appropriate thing for this group to do... even if we don't have the implementation expertise

<astronouth7303> cwebber2: ^^

astronouth7303: "+0 on e2e: I recognize that it is a highly-wanted feature, i'm not sold it can be done in ActivityPub while maintaining desired privacy and without breaking ActivityPub"

P

cwebber: There are two things I want to say. First, this is a hard thing to do correctly. I'm sure we all know this comes up all the time - people want e2e encryption so I wanted to discuss it

<tantek> no no, neither Signal nor Telegram are federated

<tantek> incomparable to email sorry

<aaronpk> that's what i was going to say :)

cwebber: Signal and Telegram seem to be doing much better than email with e2e encryption. Maybe explicitly designed systems it could be done better, but it would have to be tried. But I share skepticism of many people in this group.

<tantek> I mean, iMessage does great e2e encryption :P

<ajordan> tantek: cwebber2's point is that the UX is better

<ajordan> definitely valid criticism tho

<tantek> UX for federated e2e is MUCH harder than silo e2e

<ajordan> tantek++

<tantek> silo e2e can conflate all key management issues etc. and make that transparent to users

cwebber: If people are very interested in trying it. Having a wrapper with encryption type as property would solve better than gobbledigook as in OTR on XMPP etc.

<jaywink> TBH, AP should have clear definition of what is security before the ultimate security feature (=e2e) is even discussed :)

<astronouth7303> jaywink++

<Loqi> jaywink has 3 karma

<tantek> it's good to set the UX bar as high as iMessage/Signal/Telegram, HOWEVER, it doesn't mean those are proofs of concept of how to do federated UX

<geppy> ^^

aaronpk: Signal and Telegram solve this by not being federated because they handle key management. So we can't say "let's do that"

<geppy> jaywink++

<Loqi> jaywink has 4 karma

aaronpk: iMessage is coordinating the keys, so when you get new device they distribute the keys etc. So you're fetching the keys from centralised service. It works but it's not federated.

<nightpool> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 88 karma in this channel (1341 overall)

<nightpool> key management is definitely the right frame here

<tantek> aaronpk++ the key challenge is key management

<Loqi> aaronpk has 89 karma in this channel (1342 overall)

aaronpk: We should handle it as a key management problem, not an encryption problem.

<tantek> so to speak ;)

<ajordan> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 90 karma in this channel (1343 overall)

<Zakim> geppy, you wanted to clarify "an extension [to be designed later by experts]" versus "an extension [like this]"

geppy: I don't feel qualified to weigh in on any aspect, extension or not.

<ajordan> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMEMO

ajordan: Since we're talking about OTR, Signal etc, an example of federated encryption system that works is OMEMO
... I recommend looking into OMEMO for design choices such as "each device has a key" instead of each user which makes it easier to use.

<wilkie> Matrix has federated e2e

<cwebber2> good point wilkie

ajordan: Another thing that makes it work is the fact that XMPP has publish/subscribe which makes it easy to update and basically coordinate device lists so you can easily see which clients the user has

<nightpool> yeah I mentioned that a bit back but it got lost in the scrollback I think. it also has this per-client key thing

<geppy> see https://matrix.org and https://matrix.org/docs/guides/e2e_implementation.html

ajordan: And based on this, it's possible to activate OMEMO encryption automatically

<Loqi> Welcome to Matrix

<Loqi> An open network for secure, decentralized communication.

<Loqi> Learn More

<Loqi> ...

<wilkie> Matrix developed this Olm library, which might be of some inspiration: https://github.com/matrix-org/olm

<Loqi> [matrix-org] olm: An implementation of the Double Ratchet cryptographic ratchet in C++/C

ajordan: There are still issues that clients won't say "I don't support this" and ActivityPub maybe doesn't have this signalling and primitives for devices.

<Zakim> nightpool, you wanted to scope

cwebber: Matrix has end to end encryption

I'm going ayway for a moment

<cwebber2> (that last scribe of me was relaying what wilkie said

<cwebber2> )

get geppy

<geppy> scribenick geppy

<geppy> scribenick: geppy

<tantek> !tell saranix before github issues, w3c issues were kept in a variety of disparate systems, some with very poor UX (which meant people didn't use them much in practice, or only a small subset with lots of time to spend used them, another form of indirect exclusion). disparate systems like W3C bugzilla, W3C "tracker", w3c wiki pages, documents in w3c CVS, etc. Individual WGs started switching to github because it was far more accessible/usable (thus inclusive) to

<Loqi> Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next

<tantek> more people than *any* of those disparate systems.

<Zakim> MMN-work, you wanted to OMEMO history etc.

MMN-work is stepping away for a moment

<nightpool> my stuff didn't get scribed

cwebber: do we want to say we've said all we have to say? we've had a useful conversation pointing out relevant prior art

<tantek> let's capture OMEMO and Matrix as examples to read & review before continuing discussion

sorry, nightpool

<nightpool> I'll re-do it here

<tantek> what's the issue # / URL for tracking this?

<nightpool> We should make sure to narrow our scope: if we want to implement e2e as an extension, we should focus first on the scope of direct messages, with 1 user talking to 1 other user

<nightpool> basically chats

ajordan: if anyone disagrees, feel free to speak up. but it seems the general consensus is that this is an extremely complex issue that we may not be able to solve *at all*. We may have more basic issues we need to resolve, e.g. direct messages

<wilkie> doesn't matter how complex it is, somebody is going to do it... it is going to be important to outline the goals of it and why it is hard?

cwebber2: proposal: E2E is interesting and worth exploring in the future, but not the primary focus of *this* group.

<aaronpk> we don't seem to have an issue for this on https://github.com/swicg/general/issues

<nightpool> cwebber2: I would make an even stronger proposal

<ajordan> +1

<nightpool> in that this group does not have the resources or expertise to qualify an e2e system.

aaronpk: I'd suggest that we should review the prior art of OMEMO and Matrix before talking about this again.

<astronouth7303> +1 out of scope for the main SocialCG (the "play in the corner" solution)

<wilkie> yes, what cwebber2 is saying

cwebber2: It may be useful to talk about this in order to lay the groundwork. Maybe write up a report about issues we've identified. Cochairs?

<saranix> +1 revisit after everyone has read the material

<Loqi> saranix: tantek left you a message 4 minutes ago: before github issues, w3c issues were kept in a variety of disparate systems, some with very poor UX (which meant people didn't use them much in practice, or only a small subset with lots of time to spend used them, another form of indirect exclusion). disparate systems like W3C bugzilla, W3C "tracker", w3c wiki pages, documents in w3c CVS, etc. Individual WGs started switching to github because it was far ...

<Loqi> ... more accessible/usable (thus inclus[CUT]

I'd be willing to look into this and write up some unofficial notes for my own domain

MMN-work++ for scribing earlier

<Loqi> mmn-work has 2 karma

<cwebber2> informal proposal: e2e is important but we don't have the expertise / experience to do it right now, we're interested in hearing more research about it, but we don't have the bandwidth to make it take up our primary work right now

+1

<cwebber2> +1

<MMN-work> +1

<astronouth7303> +1

<tantek> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<wilkie> +1

<nightpool> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<ajordan> tantek, aaronpk: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/225

<Loqi> [brianolson] #225 Needs provisions for encrypting content for privacy

cwebber2: I haven't seen so many +1s at once in a while! Informally resolved.

<wilkie> I need the next item on the agenda... where do we write these notes heh because I can write something up

<cwebber2> not so many +1s so fast anyway :)

Authenticated/private WebSub subscriptions

<jaywink> +1

<jaywink> :P

<ajordan> +1 (to cwebber2's proposal)

<saranix> +1

<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2

aaronpk: github supposedly implemented websub, but it turns out not exactly, since they require authenticating via an api key, which breaks compatibility but for a reason presumably they need. wondering if anyone has heard of other groups doing this or are interested in exploring it

<tantek> !tell saranix re: @user - did not happen because of Twitter marketing, rather people were already using @-name references on Twitter *before* Twitter acknowledged it, linked them, and made them official. @-name refs predate twitter on various other bbs or silos (e.g. have seen on Flickr too)

<Loqi> Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next

aaronpk: I also know that mastodon has done interesting things with PuSH / websub to do private feeds, wonder if there are things we can learn from them

<geppy1> nightpool: mastodon seems to hook WebSub into Salmon somehow, requiring approval for follow requests

nightpool: yes, mastodon hooks up pubsubhubbub with salmon in a way I'm not familiar with, where person following needs to approve it

<scribe> scribenick: geppy1

<puckipedia> cwebber2: I think what Mastodon does is they check the hostname of the websub target url, and if noone on that host is following that person, that subscription only gets public posts

aaronpk: I think unlike e2e this is something we can actually make progress on

<cwebber2> ajordan: the agenda is skewed that way but doesn't have to be

<MMN-work> geppy++

<Loqi> geppy has 1 karma

nightpool: That's how they distribute private messages, but it's also how they handle follow requests if your account is "locked".

<cwebber2> ajordan: anyone can add topics, and should

<ajordan> cwebber2: that's what I'm saying

I think this is really interesting, but I'll have to go back and see what I missed

<tantek> +1 to ajordan's point

<ajordan> most people here are interested in AP, I'd like to bring more IndieWeb people in here

<geppy> cwebber2: We have two agenda items left, do we want to do that?

<nightpool> Sorry, I used to know how the system works but it's been a few months since I touched that part of the code

<cwebber2> PROPOSAL: extend the group for 15 minutes

<ajordan> +1

<geppy> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<nightpool> +1

<MMN-work> +1

<wilkie> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<tantek> +1 can actually make it today because #css is pushed to 16:00 PDT!

<astronouth7303> +1

<geppy> :)

<ajordan> \o/

<geppy> (proposal succeeds)

<geppy> cwebber2: next topic is where extension proposals should go (ActivityPub organization, SWICG repo, ...)

<geppy> cwebber2: long term I'm not sure putting it on /activitypub makes sense, especially once it goes to CR. Can someone with more W3C experience weigh in?

<geppy> cwebber2: do tantek or aaronpk have any thoughts on this?

<geppy> there is an "i'm thinking" emoji, don't know about emoticons

<nightpool> 🤔

<geppy> tantek: extensions are a weird thing in the W3C space in that I don't know of a consistent pattern, despite being involved in W3C for years.

<geppy> tantek: I think if we come up with something that sounds reasonable it's likely to be okay

<nightpool> Has anyone recently been able to sign up for a wiki account?

<Zakim> geppy, you wanted to mention rel=""

<MMN-work> scribenick: MMN-work

geppy: [silence]

<ajordan> nightpool: wiki logins are a disaster, see https://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2017-06-07/line/1496821239733

<Loqi> [ajordan] astronouth7303: try setting your password to 16 characters, alphanumeric only

<ajordan> (and following messages)

<cwebber2> geppy, we assume you are typing :)

geppy left the server

ajordan: I have a concrete proposal.

<cwebber2> geppy, keep typing, I will relay you when you're done... oh, or maybe you dropped out

ajordan: If we want to write a "spec" we can create another repository under SWICG we can have an issue tracker for that extension specifically

<geppy1> geppy: I'd refer to I think the HTML `link` tag's `rel` property is defined as being extended on microformats.org, as well as if there's a microformat spec (can't remember) I think it also says "go look at the external microformats wiki for extensions". [sorry, got disconnected while saying this earlier]

<geppy1> Sorry, got disconnected again. :/

cwebber: We could record, accept PRs etc, put their drafts into text. That sounds good to me.

<geppy> *refer*, not *prefer*

geppy: I'd prefer to think the HTML `link` tag's `rel` property is defined as being extended on microformats.org, as well as if there's a microformat spec (can't remember) I think it also says "go look at the external microformats wiki for extensions". [sorry, got disconnected while saying this earlier]

<nightpool> (MMN-work: anything someone says in IRC is automatically recorded as part of the minutes, just FYI)

cwebber: I don't think the same workflow applies to us. It is useful to look at what other attached parts of our (web/w3c/social) space
... ...are doing

nightpool: My proposal is basically the same as ajordan's. The major difference is that we have a organisation namespace so many extensions could live in their own repos. With ActivityPub repo we only have that single repo to work with.

<ajordan> PROPOSED: Create an activitypub-extensions repo under the SWICG GitHub org in order to discuss AP extensions. Move existing "postponed (revisit in future effort)" discussions there. Create a separate repository if we want to actually write out some spec text for an extension.

<geppy> +1

<ajordan> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<astronouth7303> +1

nightpool: Also we should rename SWICG to SocialCG considering the resolution on the last meeting

<wilkie> what about https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_extensions

<wilkie> what tantek said!

<ajordan> nightpool: I was also suggesting that we create an extension per repo

+0

<nightpool> +1

<saranix> +1

<Loqi> saranix: tantek left you a message 14 minutes ago: re: @user - did not happen because of Twitter marketing, rather people were already using @-name references on Twitter *before* Twitter acknowledged it, linked them, and made them official. @-name refs predate twitter on various other bbs or silos (e.g. have seen on Flickr too)

<wilkie> I just wanted to understand if one gets deprecated or removed

<nightpool> ajordan: I think that some extensions are small enough they can live on the main repo, and some extensions need a full repo

tantek: I want to offer an alternative, instead of saying "we should do it this way". People have different preference for markdown/wiki markup, they're equally awkward

<ajordan> nightpool: that seems reasonable. we can decide per-spec later if we need

tantek: with proposals it's something that could go on the wikipage and doesn't have to go on github. The ux on github is better than wiki for issues

<nightpool> I would be =1 to using wiki pages for extensions. it makes it hard to come to consensus or figuring out what is "official" vs just proposed.

tantek: wiki gives us at least _a_ way to participate without having a GitHub account

<cwebber2> nightpool, =1? :)

tantek: we could have a link to the proposal to leave it up to the person letting the one having a proposal have more control on how to develop it

<nightpool> er, -1

<nightpool> for wikis

cwebber: It looks like we have a resolution to create the repo, at least to have a place to capture conversation. Where the extensions are then drafted can be left up to the people doing it.
... so GitHub is for discussion and not for drafting

<tantek> I'd prefer not requiring github for actual extension text

<tantek> but that's not a strong preference, more like a suggestion for the group

someone: that's not what the proposal was

<geppy> I'd also prefer not *requiring* GitHub, I particularly like just linking to an external domain with an extension spec.

<aaronpk> heh that's not a problem unique to a wiki. people often don't realize that W3C notes are different from W3C recs

nightpool: wiki is harder to distinguish what's official etc, while on GitHub there is discussion per pull request etc.

<aaronpk> same with ietf docs

<saranix> they are all confusing, but github login barrier is serious issue

<tantek> in contrast, both microformats and indieweb community have developed specs on wikis successfully for years

<tantek> so it is doable

ajordan: I wanted to point out that with the wiki it's unclear how to have parallell discussions. With GitHub you can have parallell discussions on pull requests. I can't see how that would look on a wiki

<nightpool> github.com/rust-lang/rfcs rust RFCs are a good example of work in this space

<geppy> nightpool++ for mentioning rust-lang/rfcs

<Loqi> nightpool has 6 karma

cwebber: tantek writes on irc that "in contrast, both microformats and indieweb community have developed specs on wikis successfully for years"

<tantek> +extension :)

<ajordan> +1 to extending

cwebber: We're now at the extended time limit

<cwebber2> PROPOSED: extend by another 15 mins

<tantek> since we spent the previous extension talking about extensions

<cwebber2> +1

<tantek> yo dawg

<geppy> +1

<nightpool> +1

<ajordan> +1

<saranix> +1

<wilkie> +1

<tantek> +1

<ajordan> tantek++ for "yo dawg" :D

RESOLUTION: extend by another 15 mins

<ajordan> tantek++

<wilkie> I'd say: github for socialcg discussion, but yet extensions choose where language is written

<ajordan> Loqi: ping

cwebber: Does anyone want to suggest something that solves wiki proposals? (scriber: did I get that?)

<cwebber2> MMN-work, you got it

<tantek> PROPOSAL: Use https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_extensions as the directory for extensions that links to them wherever authors want to write them up (github repo, wiki, personal site), and then use github issues for issue discussions.

<wilkie> tantek needs to then scan what he is typing on his typewriter from the 70s

<geppy> +1

<ajordan> +1

<wilkie> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<cwebber2> +1

tantek: [CLICK CLICK] this is the silent version of the keyboard model, there's also a louder model.

<saranix> +1

<geppy> MMN-work++ for scribing that

<ajordan> MMN-work++

<Loqi> mmn-work has 3 karma

<astronouth7303> +1

RESOLUTION: Use https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_extensions as the directory for extensions that links to them wherever authors want to write them up (github repo, wiki, personal site), and then use github issues for issue discussions.

cwebber: Noone's on the queue, let's move on the next item

ajordan: Basically I was noticing aaronpk was talking about WebSub and I think the people in this group tend to skew heavily toward people who are interested in ActivityPu
... and I think that's un-ideal and I want to have a discussion how to bring IndieWeb oriented people into this group, so we get a broader perspective etc. etc.

cwebber: aaronpk, ben.thatmustbe.me, tantek, you are indieweb people do you want to take this?

aaronpk: I'm not sure what to say about this.

tantek: I guess the thing with the IndieWeb community is that it has a pretty strong focus on people just trying to get their own sites to work for themselves
... So most time spent in the community is getting thing to work for themselves rather than inventing and creating new things. So the community is more a support role to get things setup.
... A small subset is on the cutting/bleeding edge pushing the tech boundary
... Those people are doing it basically because of the "scratch your own itch" principle in the IndieWeb community.
... That is: "Don't just invent shit, but make something useful".
... Sometimes multiple people want to add new features that are the same and end up in collaborating. Otherwise someone brainstorms, then someone else comes along and thinks "what did others do? can I piggyback and not reinvent?"

<jaywink> a single user instance running software like mastodon should also count :)

tantek: Me, aaronpk, ben have worked on pushing the boundaries for our own sites. I'm not sure that's the answer looked for but maybe it gives some context.

<ben_thatmustbeme> I bring that up because my biggest interest would be seeing even just public posts accessible and federating between sites

cwebber: This group is open for people to post topics. The goal of the group is try to get people working on decentralised social web techs can collaborate and discuss
... I think this group is more than open for that kind of stuff, and that's somewhat why aaronpk is co-chair
... ajordan, do you think this has answered your concerns?a

<ben_thatmustbeme> so a lot of the AP work and hammering out specific pieces of the spec, but my goal has always been, lets get some simple set of things working

ajordan: There was not a lot of feedback when we discussed WebSub, so I wondered how we could get more feedback on things that aren't just ActivityPub.

<ben_thatmustbeme> I would point out that almost every project in the independant social media now has microformats, because even getting public posts readable by the indieweb was a huge first step

aaronpk: In Germany a week ago we had a good discussion on private WebMention specs. I could invite some of those to next week's call.

<ben_thatmustbeme> I also rewrote the microformats-ruby parser so that its actually high quality now, so if anyone wants to use it, they can easily parse their public pages

<geppy> https://indieweb.org/microformats-ruby

cwebber: Even though ActivityPub, MicroPub, WebMention have gotten a lot closer but they're not the same spec. But they've grown by being discussed togetherish

<ajordan> ben_thatmustbeme++

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 73 karma in this channel (230 overall)

<ajordan> for popping up out of nowhere *everywhere* and being like "HAVE YOU CONSIDERED ADDING MF2 MARKUP??"

tantek: I think that's a good community curating methodology. Encouraging a plurality of approaches, even if they don't immediately work together, tends to improve all of them.

cwebber: 30 seconds left

<ben_thatmustbeme> haha, ajordan

<Loqi> rofl

cwebber: I encourage everyone to file topics for next week. Thanks everyone for coming.

<tantek> +1 to discussing private webmentions also

cwebber: I look forward to continuing conversation on IRC

<ben_thatmustbeme> ajordan, i added them myself in several cases

<ben_thatmustbeme> MMN-work++

<Loqi> mmn-work has 4 karma

<cwebber2> geppy++

<Loqi> geppy has 2 karma

<nightpool> cwebber2++ for chairing

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 88 karma

<cwebber2> MMN-work++

<Loqi> mmn-work has 5 karma

everyone: thank everyone for being awesome

<ben_thatmustbeme> geppy++

<Loqi> slow down!

<wilkie> geppy++

<ben_thatmustbeme> Loqi karma flood

<aaronpk> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. extend by another 15 mins
  2. Use https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_extensions as the directory for extensions that links to them wherever authors want to write them up (github repo, wiki, personal site), and then use github issues for issue discussions.

[End of minutes]



Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/06/07 16:31:02 $



Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/psot/post/
Succeeded: s/activate OMEMO encryption/activate OMEMO encryption automatically/
Succeeded: s/(aaronpk?  ajordan?)/aaronpk/
Succeeded: s/approve/improve/
Default Present: geppy, MMN-work, cwebber, aaronpk, nightpool, ajordan, jaywink, ben_thatmustbeme, saranix, astronouth, wilkie
Present: geppy MMN-work cwebber aaronpk nightpool ajordan jaywink ben_thatmustbeme saranix astronouth wilkie cwebber2 astronouth7303
Found ScribeNick: MMN-work
Found ScribeNick: cwebber2
Found ScribeNick: MMN-work
Found ScribeNick: geppy
Found ScribeNick: cwebber2
Found ScribeNick: geppy1
Found ScribeNick: MMN-work
Inferring Scribes: MMN-work, cwebber2, geppy, geppy1
Scribes: MMN-work, cwebber2, geppy, geppy1
ScribeNicks: MMN-work, cwebber2, geppy, geppy1

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 07 Jun 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/06/07-social-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]