Social Web Working Group Teleconference
31 Mar 2015
See also: IRC log
- jasnell, Sandro, Arnaud, +1.617.247.aaaa, ben_thatmustbeme, elf-pavlik, +188.8.131.52.aabb, +1.514.554.aacc, eprodrom, tantek, bblfish, Ann, Tsyesika, +1.773.614.aadd, cwebber2, wilkie, bret
- eprodrom, wilkie
<trackbot> Date: 31 March 2015
<cwebber2> eprodrom: oh, was pump.io originally called "activitypump"?
<cwebber2> and oshepherd's spec too right?
<cwebber2> so that's two activitypumps
<cwebber2> confusing :)
<Loqi> tantek: elf-pavlik left you a message on 3/30 at 11:24am: do you see http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats2#combining_microformats similar to http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#embedding ? http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-03-30/line/1427739866728
<cwebber2> SIP is once again not working here
<eprodrom> Arnaud: I'd like to volunteer to scribe
<cwebber2> though it is to other servers
<bblfish> not sure
<eprodrom> It's been a long time since I scribed
<Loqi> eprodrom has 10 karma
<cwebber2> it works on the fsf's sip server
<eprodrom> scribenick eprodrom
<eprodrom> scribenick: eprodrom
<cwebber2> I'll just dial in, as soon as my phone gets reception
This time it's personal
<tantek> elf-pavlik: the microformats embedding in JSON results is based on microdata embedding in JSON, which predates the JSON-LD work. perhaps JSON-LD also copied microdata in that respect.
Arnaud: minutes of 10 March are still missing
... skip minutes of 10 March until updated by aaronpk
<tantek> note, aaronpk offered regrets in advance for today's telcon
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approval of Minutes of 24 March 2015 Teleconf
Arnaud: scribes should mark the topics to make it easier to add the minutes
<Tsyesika> Zakim: ??P8 is me
<jasnell> no objection
<Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approval of Minutes of 24 March 2015 Teleconf
Arnaud: We are also missing minutes from the F2F
There was a problem with the IRC logs, hhalpin was going to sort it out
<tantek> do we at least have good IRC logs from the f2f?
<cwebber2> I think mixed ones :)
Next teleconference 4/7
<cwebber2> depends, was timbl talking? :)
Arnaud: Next F2F in Paris in May
... Pending confirmation of location
<cwebber2> he talks so fast
Arnaud: hhalpin confirmed INRIA for F2F
... new page for F2F meeting
<tantek> added myself to regrets for Paris F2F
Arnaud: please add yourself to the sections for the Paris F2F
Arnaud: there is also a link to hotels
W3C has negotiated a deal with the hotel
Arnaud: it's not the best deal, but it is available
... breakfast is included. However, it is nonrefundable.
... takes about 30 minutes including walking and Metro from hotel to INRIA.
... Everyone will need to buy their own lunch.
... we'll continue to organize on the wiki page to develop an agenda.
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-05-04 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83239&oldid=83221
Tracking of Actions and Issues
Arnaud: let's first look at the actions
<tantek> most of the open actions look like things raised / assigned by group / one person to another person - not personal to do
Arnaud: notes that using the issue tracker for a personal todo system is probably inappropriate but OK now
<elf-pavlik> !tell harry we need action-14 reloved
jasnell: We need ISSUE-14 to be closed, Harry Halpin needs to complete
<Loqi> Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
<tantek> I'll note that action-26 has some progress since jasnell merged my first pull request for fixes to microformats examples, and I'm working on more fixes.
jasnell: we're using a namespace that's not official
<tantek> definitely more coming! thanks!
jasnell: We have had progress on action-26, microformats review
... action-29, outreach has happened, no need to leave this still open.
Arnaud: we can close action 29
jasnell: I posted a notice to the mailing list about test suites
<trackbot> issue-8 -- Test suite for activity streams 2.0 -- open
<tantek> did I hear correctly that no one formerly from the open social org responded / decided to join Social Web WG?
<tantek> re: action-29
<wilkie> hello sorry I'm late!!
<ben_thatmustbeme> elf-pavlik, does action-49 need to be in action tracking?
eprodrom: I'd like to have a mechanism that does it automatically for different programming languages
<elf-pavlik> ben_thatmustbeme, on one published it during last F2F
jasnell: action 50 and 57 could be combined
<elf-pavlik> eprodrom, look at tests in james repo
eprodrom: are there automated example extraction tools?
Arnaud: elf-pavlik, can action 50 and 57 be combined
elf-pavlik: I will work with eprodrom to make the examples easier to use
... there are some scripts for extracting the examples already
<Loqi> elf-pavlik has 14 karma
Arnaud: we have a number of issues that have been raised that should be disposed of
<tantek> wow 18 raised issues
<cwebber2> elf-pavlik: you're put down regrets for paris? too bad :(
<cwebber2> I was hoping you and Tsyesika could meet!
Arnaud: elf-pavlik and jasnell have both proposed issues to cover
<elf-pavlik> cwebber2, i participate!
<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss formal process to open/close ISSUEs in W3C Tracker
<Loqi> Abasset made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-05-04 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83240&oldid=83239
Arnaud: we have two issue trackers, Github and W3C
... we should use Github for minor editorial issues, W3C for issues that should be decided by the WG
<Loqi> Arnaud has 9 karma
Arnaud: It's a heavier process, but official
jasnell: ISSUE 4, 7, 20, 23 could be safely closed
jasnell: implicit typing can be closed, until there's a proposal
<tantek> why is there both an open action and issue on that?
<tantek> wait I'm confused why are we discussion open vs. raised issues?
jasnell: pre-JSON-LD syntax is addressed in the spec, ISSUE-7
<tantek> neither 4 nor 7 are "raised"
<jasnell> my apologies. I missed the part that we were focusing on raised
Arnaud: we should decide whether raised issues should be closed or opened
<cwebber2> one protocol per child
Arnaud: we've suffered from too many discussion protocols
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to prefer using github issues for any issues which are only about the AS spec. and to also note that I thought we left choice of issue tracking venue up to
<cwebber2> elf-pavlik: (btw I see my mistake, I misread participants as regrets :))
<cwebber2> (I blame browser scroll behavior!)
tantek: for issues related to a spec, we should defer to the issue tracking mechanism that the spec editor prefers
<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss -1 on closing issues which don't have clear resulution *in notes*
elf-pavlik: some of the issues that jasnell proposed to close don't have information, so we can't resolve them.
<tantek> it's not closing if it's not open
<tantek> it's *rejecting*
<tantek> if an issue lacks specific links then yes we should reject
elf-pavlik: we didn't clarify whether some issues with vocabulary should be handled at the WG level
<ben_thatmustbeme> i would agree, if there isn't any explanation, it can always be resubmitted with more information
Arnaud: I disagree. It's up to the WG to decide on issues of vocabulary.
... it doesn't have to be done in the call, can be done offline.
<jasnell> tantek: to the point about where the issues are being raised... it hasn't been clear that folks are actually using the github issue or looking at issues with the spec issue itself. I raised the issues on the w3c tracker to raise the visibility that there are specific spec issues that ought to be addressed
<jasnell> I'd much rather be dealing with specific spec issues than continually discussing process
<tantek> jasnell, if you want you can add specific github issues to telcon agendas. no need to go through tracker overhead.
<jasnell> so far, we've spent 30 minutes talking largely about process
<elf-pavlik> +1 tantek
eprodrom: when do issues and actions factor into our acceptance?
<tantek> jasnell, I'm trying to make less process work for you :/
Arnaud: we have to document when we are ready to go to the next step
<elf-pavlik> we have agenda wiki page where we can link to gh issues
<jasnell> I'd love it if we could talk about the specific issues now
Arnaud: We need to show our issues as being all closed when we go to candidate recommendation
<tantek> we should reject as invalid any raised issue that we deem to be lacking sufficient information to understand / process (e.g. lacking links to specific part of spec, or specific example, etc.)
Arnaud: Much of this has to do with documenting that we've done our homework
<tantek> hopefully that will encourage raising of more well documented issues
Arnaud: but it can be on Github or W3C Tracker
<tantek> we should not duplicate github issues into tracker
<Loqi> Rhiaro made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-05-04 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83241&oldid=83240
Arnaud: we should document on the wiki that issues should go into Github
<tantek> spec already links to where its issues are tracked!
<trackbot> issue-18 -- We need to know if there are any other products in this space and if there are any dependencies between ldp and opensocial planned in the future? -- raised
jasnell: reviewing issue 18, not sure there's value. It's rather vague.
<cwebber2> I would assume not if opensocial isn't really happneing anymore
Arnaud: hhalpin has an action to clarify issue 18
<trackbot> issue-19 -- WG communication channel explosion -- raised
<elf-pavlik> Erik not on a call
<bblfish> which one?
jasnell: issue-20 on text sequences: no existing implementations are doing it, no user stories require it
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Reject ISSUE-19, out of scope
<elf-pavlik> -1 Erik not on a call
<trackbot> issue-20 -- Represent Collections using JSON Text Sequences (RFC 7464) -- raised
<elf-pavlik> -1 Erik not on a call
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-20, out of scope
<tantek> suggest we reject 18 due to non-participation of open social people
<tantek> +1 on rejecting issue-20
<tantek> +1 on accepting (opening) issue-22
jasnell: issue-22 is very general
<trackbot> issue-22 -- Need to get data on implementor interest on specific features of the as spec -- raised
<tantek> this is the larger problem of scope / size / feature set of AS
<elf-pavlik> or harry during F2F
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1 to reject 22
tantek: This issue is about what we should put at-risk
... I'm trying to slim down the spec so we can get it accepted
<elf-pavlik> +1 issue-22 becomes ACTION on tantek :)
<jasnell> I think we deal with the issue best by looking a specific items
<tantek> lol elf-pavlik
<elf-pavlik> +1 to reject issue 22 for lack of description!
<KevinMarks> should we reach out to gnip and echo? they are big AS users so would have data on what is expressed
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say if processors are only doing general mapping, then we should drop specific actions
eprodrom: hard to do in the AS 2.0 process since most implementations are going to be general
tantek: I'm concerned that we don't have any implementations besides test ones
... if implementations will be general, why have a vocabulary?
jasnell: we have the core and the vocabulary
<tantek> I think elf-pavlik has done some work on specific vocabulary vs. user-stories?
<tantek> I vaguely remember seeing a wiki edit about that
jasnell: vocabulary is more focused on API
<elf-pavlik> IG has Use Case TF and Vocabulary TF
<tantek> thanks elf-pavlik that's a good start
jasnell: we need to map user stories to what the API is actually going to do
<Loqi> Cwebber2 made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-05-04 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83242&oldid=83241
jasnell: and identify the minimal set that matches those user stories
<tantek> jasnell, I'm ok with letting you drop anything (per editor discretion) you think should be dropped :)
<tantek> sounds like jasnell is proposing an action on himself as a way of closing 22
jasnell: I think we can close issue-22 if we can reconcile types in the vocabulary while we're going through the user stories
Arnaud: jasnell is already going through the spec for this
<tantek> then we don't need a specific action
<tantek> trust jasnell to edit and track his own actions
<tantek> no need to micromanage
<tantek> thanks jasnell
bblfish: start working on the api, then come back and find what's not used
<jasnell> no objection
PROPOSED: close issue-22
<elf-pavlik> +1 for no description
<tantek> +1 to reject 22
RESOLUTION: close issue-22
jasnell: issue-23, backwards compatibility is already handled in the current spec
... issue doesn't discuss why the current text is not adequate
<tantek> reject issue-23 due to lack of specific backcompat problem
<elf-pavlik> +1 close it for no description and duplicate of issue-7
<ben_thatmustbeme> reject issue-23
Arnaud: we also have issue-7
<Tsyesika> sorry about that
<tantek> spec already has a section on backcompat
PROPOSED: close issue-23
<tantek> +1 reject 23 insufficient information
<elf-pavlik> close 23
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1 to reject-23
RESOLUTION: close issue-23
<trackbot> Issue-2 -- What namespace should the Activity Streams 2.0 specification use? -- closed
<trackbot> Issue-24 -- Do we put requirement on supporting static websites? -- raised
jasnell: issue-24, is this related to AS2.0?
tantek: I thought that issue-24 was covered at F2F
... anything we develop for API must support static web sites
<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss issue-24
<jasnell> recommend closing issue-24
<sandro> Not sure what was meant by "accepted". I don't agree this is a confirmed requirement.
<cwebber2> I don't think we should
elf-pavlik: I raised this issue because we should decide if it was accepted
<cwebber2> how could a static site work with an api
<tantek> cwebber2 several work with micropub *today*
<tantek> that's the point
<tantek> we've figured out how to make static sites work with an API
Arnaud: please mark issues as API, AS 2.0, or Federation
<jasnell> +1 to closing it
<cwebber2> tantek: I'd be interested in finding out how :)
jasnell: API should be agnostic
<tantek> jasnell: API should be agnostic as to whether website is static or not
<cwebber2> I'm a bit worried
<bret> I publish consumable social data with a static website currently
<tantek> jasnell: API should be able to support it
<cwebber2> we have 10 minutes left and I think there's a lot left on the agenda, and we've mostly communicated about communicating so far in this meeting
<bblfish> The issue should define what a static web site is
elf-pavlik: AS2.0 requires content negotiation at least
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-24, there is no special requirement on static sites
<jasnell> +1 to close it
<tantek> -1 keep it open because clearly we disagree
<cwebber2> +1 close it
<sandro> requirement *for*
<tantek> thus it is an issue
<tantek> jasnell and myself think API should support static sites
<jasnell> tantek: perhaps the issue needs to be better clarified
<tantek> wheras elf-pavlik (and others?) don't
tantek: if we disagree, we should open the issue
<elf-pavlik> -1 we need to clarify our position
Arnaud: elf-pavlik can close an issue he has raised
<tantek> bblfish here is definition of a static website: https://indiewebcamp.com/static-site
<tantek> which is linked from the issue
<elf-pavlik> adding to issue as note
<trackbot> issue-24 -- Do we put requirement on supporting static websites? -- raised
bblfish: if we use the proposal, we should define a static web site
<ben_thatmustbeme> There is clearly more discussion needed here, issue should be opened
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1 to open
<jasnell> ok, if there's disagreement, I'll change mine to a -1 to closing it. +1 to opening the issue so it can be discussed further
+1 to open
<elf-pavlik> +1 open
<tantek> eprodrom: I find it hard to understand how we could have an API that was read-only that was useful
PROPOSED: open issue-24
RESOLUTION: open issue-24
<ben_thatmustbeme> delegation, using follow-your-nose would indeed allow static sites
<tantek> oh boy. definitely think this deserves opening
<trackbot> issue-21 -- Role of JSON-LD and RDF -- closed
<elf-pavlik> <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-social-irc#T18-15-09
<elf-pavlik> <rhiaro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-21 re-affirming we'll use JSON-LD as in the current draft, with a normative context, and let people bring up sub-issues
<cwebber2> elf-pavlik: ++
<tantek> elf-pavlik, but this is about *API*, not AS
<harry> hi everyone, I'm at Google and can't talk, but can answer questions in IRC.
<harry> Apologies for the excessive travelling in the last two weeks
<Loqi> harry: elf-pavlik left you a message 40 minutes ago: we need action-14 reloved http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-03-31/line/1427821927462
jasnell: with issue-25, we have only one syntax to ship, so it's not clear why we'd use multiple syntaxes
cwebber2: will we get to any other agenda items?
<harry> My feeling is only ship JSON-based syntax, but URL-based encoding is a URL formation question, and so would count as something to ship
<tantek> jasnell, see above, this issue about is about *API* specifically, not AS (which "has only one syntax to ship")
<elf-pavlik> Arnaud: people should be careful and very specific about issues they raise
Arnaud: we should be careful with the issues we raise, and have a proposed resolution
<harry> HTML-based syntaxes (ala microformats2) have I believe the ability to be transformed to JSON programmatically
<tantek> propose opening issue 25
<jasnell> tantek: understood, just need to figure out the minimal requirement here
<harry> (would need tantek to step in to clarify)
Arnaud: I have proposed at the F2F to do 1.5h meetings
<tantek> jasnell, method to minimum requirement may mean a smaller syntax
Arnaud: we can't progress unless we close issues
<AnnB> +1 on extending call, at least sometimes
<jasnell> proposal: we extend this call 30 minutes
<tantek> +1 on extending call
<elf-pavlik> +1 extending
<tantek> for next week
I have a 2PM call, so I'll need someone to take over for me.
<cwebber2> I'd be happy extending, but
<cwebber2> I really wanted eprodrom to be on the stuff for the activitypump stuff :P
<cwebber2> if he can't make it
<cwebber2> we'll have to do next week
<AnnB> maybe announce for next time that it'll be an extended call? so people can plan it into their calendars
<tantek> Arnaud, to be fair, we've had a backlog of raised issues for weeks
cwebber2: can we defer until next?
<wilkie> eprodrom: I can do take over if necessary
<cwebber2> eprodrom: we can totally defer :)
Arnaud: we are having a hard time with this group because of lots of different channels
<tantek> eprodrom, proposal is to extend call NEXT week
<cwebber2> Arnaud: you are doing a great job btw, thanks
<AnnB> you're doing a GREAT job, Arnaud
<Tsyesika> I don't think extensions are always needed, maybe just try and get through things a bit quicker
<harry> I think we have only 3 channels: IRC, wiki, email
<jasnell> +1 to an extended call next week
tantek: let's extend the call next week
<harry> everything else is not a channel
<Loqi> Arnaud has 10 karma
<sandro> +1 extended calls, starting next week
<cwebber2> I'm done already :)
<Tsyesika> it seems like we spent 10 minutes on if we should use github or tracker
<Loqi> eprodrom has 11 karma
<AnnB> eprodrom might need help chairing, if it's a longer meeting
<tantek> PROPOSAL: 1.5 hr telcon next week
<AnnB> make it 2, tantek
<AnnB> can always end early if everyone gets too tired
jasnell: it would be good if the conversation could be raised on the wiki where everyone could respond
<jasnell> I can't be on IRC all the time
Arnaud: make specific proposals on the mailing list, to make these happen
<tantek> can we start with 1.5?
wilkie: if you could take over here I'd appreciate it
<elf-pavlik> +1000 *more work prior to the meeting*
<wilkie> will do
<cwebber2> can I make a proposal for doing less meeting/communication time about communication time, or is that meta
<scribe> scribenick: wilkie
<cwebber2> are we at risk of meta-recursion
<ben_thatmustbeme> more work prior to the meeting is indeed important
<eprodrom> Thanks all, sorry for the quick cut-out
<Loqi> cwebber2 has 24 karma
Arnaud: people need to pay attention and respond to the issues
<ben_thatmustbeme> still have an open proposal
<harry> My feeling is to really think before bringing up issues, we bring them up often when they are pseudo-issues or clearly out of scope
tantek: I propose we do end the call
<elf-pavlik> and work more *prior* to the meeting
<harry> I would defer some of these issues to the editor
<bblfish> got to go
Arnaud: I agree. is there anything else or do we call it a day now?
<harry> as github comments
jasnell: the next item is very specific and may be very in depth, it may be best to postpone discussion
<cwebber2> Arnaud: how can we help as community members
Arnaud: ok. we need to be, as a group, more effective at addressing this
<cwebber2> to keep things on board?
<elf-pavlik> let's continue over mailing list and IRC with https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-31#Defining_and_documenting_WG_workflows ?
<tantek> thanks eprodrom, wilkie for scribing
Arnaud: let's call it a day. thank you evan for scribing. thanks for joining. let's try to get together and make progress.
<Loqi> Arnaud has 11 karma
<trackbot> action-52 -- Harry Halpin to Discuss re github -- due 2015-03-25 -- OPEN
<elf-pavlik> harry, ?
<harry> yep, we can move things over, but I don't run the W3C github, Robin Berjon does.
<harry> I'll ask him to setup a /social space for each of our specs
<elf-pavlik> he can create a team there
<elf-pavlik> and then we can move existing or create new repositories
<harry> Yep, who wants to be on that github team?
<elf-pavlik> jasnell, can you imagine moving some of the ISSUEs from W3C tracker to github? we will encourage everyone to engage there but will cut on this time consuming process
<elf-pavlik> harry, all WG and IG members with github accounts
<harry> ok, I'll send an email asking for these on a wiki list
<jasnell> it's going to be just as time consuming. It doesn't matter where the issues are recorded if folks aren't looking at them and discussing them
<elf-pavlik> jasnell, i agree that we need to give each other feedback
<elf-pavlik> but W3C tracker ISSUE just adds overhead
<elf-pavlik> let's at lest use ACTION
<jasnell> and it needs to come from more than just the same very small number of people
<elf-pavlik> so we don't have this formal PROPOSE open PROPOSE close
<tantek> those are all just shortcuts for trackbot to edit tracker
<tantek> they're in theory supposed to help
<jasnell> and it needs to be focused on specific technical issues rather than high level data modeling and process type questions. We need to start dealing with specifics or we are wasting time
<elf-pavlik> harry, jasnell do you joine IG call tomorrow? ping AnnB
<jasnell> I have a standing conflict for that time slot that I'm unable to get out of
<elf-pavlik> i thouight we do more specific vocab stuff there
<elf-pavlik> jasnell, will you join us in Paris for F2F3 ?
<elf-pavlik> we also have pool to change IG telecon time
<tantek> elf-pavlik: I don't expect IG to make any progress on any specific vocab stuff - as that needs to be more implementation interest driven
<jasnell> it's not clear if I'll be able to make it to Paris yet. There's a bit of a personal scheduling conflict for me that week. I won't know for another couple of weeks
<tantek> and implementers are focused in/on the WG
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]