From W3C Wiki
<RRSAgent> logging to
<bengo> I can scribe  [11:02]
<cwebber2> scribenick: bengo
<cwebber2> TOPIC:  Evergreen Recs (followup if any after cwebber reached out
           to w3c staff) (DELAYED)
<bengo> cwebber2: Let's start. First topic is I'd said I'd reach out about
        evergreen spec stuff. I've been busy and haven't been able to, but
        hopefully will be next meeting.
<cwebber2> TOPIC:
<bengo> hellekin: Status update: there are a number of tasks before launch,
        e.g. creating categories, but we can make them later.  [11:03]
<bengo> hellekin: nightpool is now an admin btw
<bengo> hellekin: We still have a few topics to fill on datashards, OCAP,
        relationsihp between ActivityPub SIG and SocialCG  [11:04]
<bengo> hellekin: We are ready to launch any time, but we can also wait a bit
        longer for cwebber2 and serge to start nice topics  [11:05]
<bengo> hellekin: There is a poll about whether to launch or wait ^
<cwebber2> q+ to address ActivityPub special interest group
<cwebber2> q?  [11:06]
<bengo> hellekin: We need more people to get involved and fill more roles, so
        we have a team and no one person burns out. Other than that, it's
        pretty much ready.
<cwebber2> ack cwebber
<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to address ActivityPub special interest group
<bengo> cwebber2: Explaining if people want attention to type 'q+'
<bengo> cwebber2: hellekin are you talking about the ActivityPub W3C CG,
        chaired by Evan?
<sl007> Prague session  [11:07]
<bengo> hellekin: No I'm referring to the discussion we had in Prague about
        what the role of this forum would be.
<bengo> cwebber2: Got it. The reason I was unsure is because all before
        ActivityPub was worked on by w3c SocialWG, Evan had made a w3c cg
        called ActivityPub. Nevermind then.
<bengo> cwebber2: The general conversation we had in Prague was that this
        SocialCG maintains more than just ActivityPub  [11:08]
<bengo> cwebber2: But we discussed it could be useful to have a more detailed
        collaboration space for ActivityPub since there is no SocialCG mailing
        list, and in there ideas related to ActivityPub could be discussed and
        percolate, and then could be brought to SocialCG.  [11:09]
<bengo> cwebber2: I am A+ in on that. We could do a vote to give socialhub an
        official purpose, but I'm not sure it's needed.
<cwebber2> q+ emacsen
<cwebber2> ack emacsen
<bengo> emacsen: I was at this discussion, but didn't fully have the
        background. I request a quick clarification because datashards came
        up.  [11:10]
<cwebber2> q+ to answer emacsen about datashards and socialhub
<kaniini> (that was Pleroma, but not me directly)
<sl007> q+  [11:11]
<bengo> emacsen: Datashards isn't an AP protocol, but there are some AP
        implementors eager to integrate datashards into their projects. But
        that's a separate activity from AP. So is datashards discussion
        allowed/encouraged on
<cwebber2> ack cwebber
<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to answer emacsen about datashards and socialhub
<bengo> cwebber2: 1) is going to be "the" AP forum
        and sicuss issues, then raise important topics to SocialCG as needed.
<bengo> cwebber2: 2) The people running socialhub, including hellekin and
        nightpool[m] want to bootstrap the forum with topics of interest to AP
        community before opening it to general public
<hellekin> +1
<bengo> cwebber2: One topic might be OCAP w/ AP, another might be Datashards
        w/ AP.
<cwebber2> q?  [11:13]
<cwebber2> ack sl007 
<cwebber2> ack sl
<bengo> sl007: As hellikin already wrote on the forum, discourse will
        eventually implement AP, so the forum will be federated via AP. Also
        wrt datashards, there are categories in the forum, so to discuss
        datashards you could use #fediverse tag.
<cwebber2> q+ to suggest how emacsen could help with the datashards stuff
<cwebber2> q?  [11:14]
<cwebber2> ack cwebber
<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to suggest how emacsen could help with the
        datashards stuff
<bengo> sl007: In general the forum is interesting for all kinds of
        'fediverse' people, so it would be useful to have a summary of
        datashards there.
<bengo> cwebber2: I think emacsen and I should have a conversation offline
        about getting this stuff going on the forum. I could use help since
        I'm timestrapped, emacsen is too. So emacsen and I should coordinate
        offline ASAP after call.
<bengo> cwebber2: hellekin there has been a question about when forum is open
        to public. Do you want to respond to that?  [11:15]
<bengo> hellekin: There is a poll in the forum. nightpool[m] and I think we're
        ready to go. Other, we're not sure. We have options: e.g. 15th of
        October fixed date.  [11:16]
<bengo> hellekin: I'm okay with going as we are and launching right now.
<bengo> proposal... launch right now
<bengo> cwebber2: My personal attitude is 'release early, release often'
<cwebber2> q?
<bengo> cwebber2: But I leave it up to forum admins
<hellekin> q+  [11:17]
<cwebber2> ack hellekin 
<kaniini> (i can't see what is on it, as i haven't asked for an account yet)
<bengo> hellekin: Melody earlier didn't ask for invitation, but was wondering
        why people here couldn't participate
<bengo> q+
<cwebber2> ack ben
<cwebber2> ack bengo
<cwebber2> bengo: I typed a proposal suggestion earlier
<kaniini> i couldn't hear any of that  [11:18]
<cwebber2> PROPOSED: Launch as soon as possible
<bengo> +1
<rigelk> +1
<sl007> +1
<hellekin> +1
<cwebber2> +1
<jesopo> +1
<bengo> cwebber2: You can type +1 if you are in favor. -1 if you are
        against. or +0, 0, -0 if youa re wishy washy
<kaniini> +1  [11:19]
<cwebber2> emacsen: +1
<cwebber2> RESOLVED: Launch as soon as possible
<hellekin> it's online :)
<cwebber2> q?
<bengo> cwebber2: Let us enjoy having the liveness of it  [11:20]
<bengo> cwebber2: <claps>
<cwebber2> q?
<cwebber2> TOPICS: Introductions
<cwebber2> TOPIC: Introductions
<bengo> cwebber2: I realize we have some people who are new to the call. It's
        a tradition to have everyone introduce themselves.  [11:21]
<cwebber2> bengo: hey I'm bengo / benjamin goering (sp?) and I used to be part
           of the socialwg and did two small implementations and happy to be
<bengo> emacsen: Hi I'm serge (emacsen). This is my second call. Im very
        interested in AP, no current implementations, but I hope to soon. And
        I'm interested in tangentially related technologies like datashards
<bengo> hellekin: Hi I'm Hellikin. I run a nonprofit in Brussels caled petit
        singularity (?). I've been catherding, and work for a nonprofit that
        helps fund free software like ActivityPub  [11:23]
<jesopo> I'm jess. this is my second meeting. communication protocol nerd and
         writing a AP server implementation in an IRC that almost federates!
<jesopo> got the name bang on cwebber2
<jesopo> je so po
<hellekin> Petites Singularités participates in the NGI0 consortium (see
<bengo> kaniini: Hi. I'm me, kaniini. I work on Pleroma. I've also worked on
        Mastodon in the past. And also GNU Social very very very long time
<bengo> kaniini: I also started the litepub group, which is kind of like the
        opposite of the SocialCG.
<bengo> melody: I'm melody. I'm working with a small team at my cooperative on
        potential AP implementation. I'm mostly concerned with anti-harassment
        and anti-abuse online.  [11:25]
<hellekin> melody: you're super welcome to the :)
<bengo> rigelk: I'm rigelk. I'm working at a University in the East of France
        on Olki, a social platform for scientists that federates  [11:26]
<bengo> sebi: Hi this is Sebastian. You might know me from the Prague
        conference. Aside from that I'm doing redaktor, a multimedia CMS that
        is based on ActivityPub. I'm trying to push self-hosting.
<bengo> sebi: You can read about this in the forum's software
        category. Before, I worked as a photojournalist for 20 years, but
        unfortunately my camera sank to the Pacific ocean.  [11:27]
<bengo> sl007: I posted some grants on the forum. If you want to help with
        redaktor it uses TypeScript, node.js
<bengo> (hope sl007 is sedi)
<cwebber2> present+  [11:28]
<jesopo> present+
<melody> present+
<hellekin> present+
<rigelk> present+
<bengo> cwebber2: I forgot another thing to start the meeting with the bot. we
        need to type 'present+' if you are present
<bengo> present+
<cwebber2> present+ emacsen
<sl007> present+
<cwebber2> chair: cwebber2
<bengo> cwebber2: That way the logs will pick you up as having attended the
<kaniini> present+
<bengo> cwebber2: Let's move forward to next topic: "Issue Triage from
        GitHub". First I want to talk about how we deal with it.  [11:29]
<hellekin> Agenda:
<bengo> cwebber2: We've handled github issues in other groups. We usually ask
        people to raise issues ahead of time, and if they don't, we just go
        through the tortuous process of going one by one
<bengo> cwebber2: Im interested in the metaconversation about how to handle
        these. The W3C Wiki is hard to edit for everyone and add topics to the
        meeting page  [11:30]
<bengo> cwebber2: So I wonder if there is another way to raise issues to the
        group. Maybe we could have a thread before the meetings, including
<bengo> q+
<cwebber2> ack bengo  [11:31]
<cwebber2> scribe: cwebber2
<kaniini> q+
<cwebber2> bengo: it seems like the github is where most of the conversations
           would happen for a few years, I found it disillusioning in the past
           that I would raise things and then they would never get addressed
<hellekin> q+  [11:32]
<cwebber2> bengo: I think a real question is whether or not the ideal point of
           a forum to have "issue zero" level of issues, have them all
<cwebber2> q+
<bengo> q?
<cwebber2> q?
<cwebber2> ack kaniini 
<cwebber2> scribenick bengo
<bengo> kaniini: One of the larger frustrations I've noticed amongst
        implementors who try to interact with the SocialCG (which led to
        litepub becoming a thing)
<cwebber2> q-  [11:33]
<bengo> kaniini: Traditionally there have been these meetings that people go
        to every once in awhile. People are supposed to open a GitHub
        issue. But then there are no facts or figures about when consensus is
        going to be reached.
<cwebber2> q+ to suggest how github should be used vs how socialhub should be
<bengo> kaniini: e.g. someone files a bug, but there is never a response like
        'we will discuss this issue at this time'
<bengo> kaniini: Now that there is this socialhub forum, I think that's a
        better way to go. What you can do is to create the issue on GitHub,
        which tracks the issue. Then we can have a corresponding discussion on
        the forum that references it.  [11:34]
<bengo> kaniini: That way there is a paper trail about what has been
        discussed, when consensus is made, and that way the entire reasoning
        behind each conslusion is clearly documented.
<bengo> kaniini: If we can leverage socialhub to coordinate how issues are
        addressed, I think that would be optimal.  [11:35]
<cwebber2> q?
<cwebber2> ack hellekin 
<bengo> hellekin: I want to add to that. Discourse comes with GitHub
        integration. It's possible to allow discourse to write into GitHub
<rigelk> +1 hellekin
<cwebber2> q?
<cwebber2> ack cwebber2 
<cwebber2> ack cwebber2
<cwebber2> ack cwebber
<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to suggest how github should be used vs how
        socialhub should be used
<bengo> cwebber2: For me, hopefully points to a
        much happier future for the issue tracker.  [11:36]
<bengo> cwebber2: I think we do want to aim for 'issues zero' and
        address/resolve all issues in some way
<bengo> cwebber2: (as an ideal, if not in practice)
<bengo> cwebber2: I think it was a mistake in this community that we kind of
        said 'now that the specs done, the issue tracker is both for
        discussion and issues we want resolved in the spec'  [11:37]
<bengo> cwebber2: It made it very hard to sort through issues that need action
        vs open places for discussion
<kaniini> +q
<bengo> cwebber2: Now we have a big opportunity with socialhub forum to move
        not-actionable discussions to the forum. Before we worry about
        issue-zero, we should try to dequeue all conversational issues and
        move them to
<bengo> cwebber2: I think it would be a clean separation
<cwebber2> q?  [11:38]
<cwebber2> ack kaniini 
<bengo> cwebber2: It would be helpful to have volunteers to filter open issues
        and identify conversational ones that might be best moved to the forum
<cwebber2> q+ to respond to crickets in the socialcg  [11:39]
<bengo> kaniini: As implementors of large deployments of AP
        (e.g. Mastodon/Pleroma), we have at times attempted to engage the
        SocialCG for guidance, and it's basically crickets. Some issues are
        more urgently actioned than others.
<sl007> q+
<bengo> kaniini: I'd like there to be an 'urgent, actionable' status on these
<bengo> kaniini: Sometimes when we've engaged the socialcg for guidance, it's
        because we have ongoing problems.  [11:40]
<bengo> kaniini: which means that we have users that are rightly angry because
        there is some defect in the way that the federated network works.
<bengo> kaniini: ocap, key rotation are things we're pushing for because
        people are asking for answers.
<bengo> kaniini: Ultimately what we need is some workflow for urgent items.
<bengo> kaniini: The best thing we could get out of socialcg is support for
        getting these things accomplished.  [11:41]
<bengo> q+
<cwebber2> ack cwebber  [11:42]
<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to respond to crickets in the socialcg
<bengo> kaniini: In liu of that support, we sometimes resort to
        quick-fixes. And having a priority queue would help us avoid quick
<bengo> cwebber2: I think you're right that socialcg has not been the most
        responsive to issues people want to address. In some ways it's
        possible for the community to help us do better. You're right there
        could be better workflow, which we could discuss on the forum.  [11:43]
<bengo> cwebber2: Here is my interim workflow proposal: If it's a
        conversational issue, post on It's an
        issue with a spec, raise it on the issue tracker.
<bengo> cwebber2: If one of those things looks like we need to have a
        conversation, raising it for these calls would be helpful, and say
        that explicitly so it gets on the agenda.
<bengo> cwebber2: We've had these meetings in the past, and the agendas are
        empty. I think not being able to edit the wiki has been a barrier. But
        we can work around that with people saying on issues or forum posts as
        'please put on agenda for next call'  [11:44]
<bengo> cwebber2 +1
<bengo> cwebber2: Was that a sufficient response kaniini ?
<cwebber2> q?
<bengo> kaniini: yeah i think we're on the same page. As long as there's a
        workflow for something when things are on fire we need a solution now.
<bengo> kaniini: Traditionally we haven't had that.  [11:45]
<bengo> cwebber2: Let's work on it
<cwebber2> ack sl
<cwebber2> ack bengo   [11:46]
<kaniini> +q
<cwebber2> bengo: there's a lot of issues that have a lot of conversation but
           don't move quite to something actionable  [11:48]
<cwebber2> bengo: most of them aren't things that are quite at a point to be
           able to be yes/no voted on a spec change
<cwebber2> q?
<cwebber2> ack kaniini   [11:49]
<bengo> kaniini: I agree many issues aren't actionable. That's one thing that
        makes litepub group different from socialcg. It's more close-door, but
        when we release something it's more in the form of a full
<bengo> kaniini: That's kind of due to the background of how that group
        formed. But I think we can document a lot of what we've learned in
        litepub (e.g. how to write a good specification), and that help us
        move toward actionable specification on the issue tracker. Like how
        IETF does RFCs  [11:50]
<cwebber2> q?
<cwebber2> q+
<bengo> kaniini: I think if we can shift toward that model for SocialCG, it
        could be really productive
<bengo> kaniini +1  [11:51]
<bengo> kaniini: (without the closed-door aspect)
<bengo> cwebber2: closed-door wrt socialcg or litepub?
<bengo> kaniini: litepub. The way litepub has made most specs, some developers
        in the group get together, talk privately, and someone makes a spec
        (usually me)
<bengo> kaniini: e.g. pixelfed and pleroma work well on many topics. Mostly
        because we get together, bang out interop, and release something
<bengo> kaniini: That's how our work on OCAP got released
<bengo> kaniini: That's what I mean about closed-door: one or two people get
        together and bang out a draft and get it done
<bengo> kaniini: socialcg seems to be the opposite: conversation, consensus,
        etc. I think we need the best of both worlds.
<sl007> [lost connection]  [11:53]
<sl007> First off and don't get me wrong
<sl007> I do understand the anger of "great implementations"
<sl007> did i understand right that implementations having most users should
<sl007> be treated first?
<bengo> kaniini: COnversation and consensus discussions a solid draft, not
        vague ideas.
<sl007> then it raises a broader question to me which is about democracy
<sl007> [ the same than with one very great very white man currently ]
<sl007> I just mean : Diversity means to put weaker on the same level and
<sl007> base democracy is important for the AP community.
<sl007> And we should treat Issues important for protocol itself first …
<cwebber2> q?
<bengo> kaniini: There are people who come in and are idea people, but someone
        also has to turn ideas into specs. If you let idea people dominate the
        conversation without having actual spec-work, without being able to
        prove things out in an actual document that has
        revision/thought-process, then you ultimately hit the ground but the
        wheels are spinning instead of actual traction  [11:54]
<bengo> kaniini: What I think is necessary is balance between ideas and
        hardened polished drafts.
<bengo> kaniini: I think that socialhub could come into that. What we can do
        is have threads on socialhub for ideas. Then people who know how to
        turn ideas into specifications can do so.
<bengo> cwebber2: <encourages to look above at what sl007 typed>
<kaniini> +q  [11:56]
<cwebber2> ack cwebber2 
<cwebber2> ack cwebber
<bengo> cwebber2: I think the call to make things more actionable is being
        said all around. Sounds like there in consensus. And that everyone
        also wants a place for conversations.  [11:57]
<cwebber2> q?
<hellekin> cwebber2: I would help, but need access to the repo
<bengo> cwebber2: Any volunteers to identify conversational issues and propose
        they be moved to the socialhub forum
<hellekin> cwebber2: for Oauth access from Discourse  [11:58]
<cwebber2> ACTION: give hellekin authority to open/close issues on activitypub
<cwebber2> q?
<cwebber2> ack kaniini 
<bengo> Can we start a socialhub forum thread for a megaproposal to close a
        list of github issues an dencourage refiling as forum threads? People
        can then raise concerns (if any) and we can vote all at once  [11:59]
<bengo> kaniini: I want to address what sl007 said about democracy
<cwebber2> bengo, I am completely +1 on that.  can you do it? :)
<hellekin> bengo: sure
<cwebber2> q+ emacsen
<bengo> kaniini: In practice I agree. But also we're trying to make something
        that people depend on in the real world. So a balance is
        necessary. Can't have complete democracy without the actual userbase
        [having a say].  [12:00]
<hellekin> bengo: you may paste the URL to the issues list on Github in the
           topic title, then describe the topic. There's a #todo tag ;)
<bengo> kaniini: Implementations of all sizes and maturity level should be
        equally at the table. At the same time, when you have bad actors in
        the fediverse going around harassing people utilizing security
        vulnerabilities in the design of the protocol or caused by
        unclearness, I do believe that those issues do need more urgent triage
<bengo> kaniini: Because the fediverse is based on trust, but if users cannot
        trust that their data is being processed in a secure way, then there
        is no fediverse anymore. Or maybe there is, but people wont use it if
        they don't trust it.  [12:01]
<sl007> About "security issues" is what I would strongly consider as "we
        should treat Issues important for protocol itself first …"
<bengo> kaniini: In terms of implementations needing to come to consensus on
        an extension, I think they can just follow the new socialcg process
        we're working on.
<hellekin> kaniini: do you think we need a private space to discuss these
           security issues urgently?
<cwebber2> q?
<cwebber2> PROPOSAL: extend meeting by 10 minutes to wrap up this conversation
           and then schedule next meeting
<bengo> +1
<kaniini> +1
<sl007> q+
<cwebber2> +1
<rigelk> +1
<hellekin> +1
<melody> +1
<sl007> +1
<cwebber2> emacsen: +1  [12:03]
<jesopo> +1
<cwebber2> RESOLVED: extend meeting by 10 minutes to wrap up this conversation
           and then schedule next meeting
<kaniini> hellekin: i don't.  because by the time these security issues are
          being discussed, they are likely being exploited in the wild already
<cwebber2> ack emacsen
<sl007> q-
<hellekin> sounds good to me
<bengo> emacsen: To volunteer to help triage issues, should I coordinate with
        hellekin  [12:04]
<bengo> cwebber2: Yeah and bengo
<cwebber2> q?
<kaniini> (and besides, there is litepub group for mature implementations to
          privately discuss security matters)
<cwebber2> TOPIC: Next meeting scheduling
<bengo> cwebber2: We had a discussion about litepub how and how to work on
        specs and stuff, and think we might continue that discussion in next
        meeting. For now let's talk scheduling next meeting
<bengo> cwebber2: A couple weeks ago we discussed doing this every other week,
        not just monthly.  [12:05]
<bengo> cwebber2: We had also discussed switching between wednesdays and
        saturdays. Because some people can't make some days
<bengo> cwebber2: I'd like a vote on those topics
<cwebber2> PROPOSED: Continue bi-weekly (every second week) meetings of the
           SocialCG for the interim  [12:06]
<bengo> +1
<cwebber2> +1
<rigelk> +1
<jesopo> +1
<hellekin> ¿1
<kaniini> +1
<sl007> +1
<hellekin> +1
<cwebber2> emacsen: +1
<cwebber2> RESOLVED: Continue bi-weekly (every second week) meetings of the
           SocialCG for the interim
<hellekin> yeah, wrong keymap :P
<cwebber2> PROPOSED: Continue with rotation between wednesday and saturday
           meetings, with next meeting occuring on October 26th  [12:07]
<hellekin> +1
<bengo> -0
<cwebber2> +0
<jesopo> +0
<cwebber2> emacsen: +0
<rigelk> +1  [12:08]
<sl007> +1
<kaniini> +0
<melody> +0
<rigelk> jesopo, there are now events on the forum
<cwebber2> RESOLVED: Continue with rotation between wednesday and saturday
           meetings, with next meeting occuring on October 26th
<jesopo> does that send out emails?
<jesopo> or so
<hellekin> if we put the meetings on socialhub, there's an agenda
<rigelk> not that I know of - hellekin ?
<bengo> cwebber2: This raises a meta-conversation about how do we schedule
        meetings in the future across wiki/forum/irc.  [12:09]
<cwebber2> q?
           only shows upcoming meetings
<bengo> cwebber2: Let's discuss later. Until then, people should feel free to
        propose topics on the forum, and I will move them to the wiki