- DRAFT -
Social Web Working Group Teleconference
21 Apr 2015
See also: IRC log
- +1.514.554.aaaa, Sandro, aaronpk, +1.773.614.aabb, eprodrom, jasnell, elf-pavlik, cwebber2, harry, Tsyesika, tantek, wilkie, Ann, +22.214.171.124.aacc, +1.509.375.aadd, rhiaro, +1.408.335.aaee, +1.408.335.aaff
<trackbot> Date: 21 April 2015
<elf-pavlik> just to clarify, James already prepared PR to drop *as:rel* https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/100
<elf-pavlik> eprodrom, what do you mean by open-ended?
<harry> chairs, if you guys don't mind staying on after the call quickly, we have some new IE applications
<harry> I'll forward them out now, just recovering from most vicious flu ever
<eprodrom> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 21 April 2015
<rhiaro> One of the Ps would have been me, but it isn't showing when I join
good day ;)
I can scribe
<Loqi> cwebber2 has 27 karma
<eprodrom> scribenick cwebber2
<elf-pavlik> scribenick: cwebber2
eprodrom: let's get started. According to the agenda we have to review last week's minutes
... I think we had an issue around our march 10 minutes
... but those are complete now
eprodrom: can we approve the march 10 minutes?
scribe: good, looks good
<elf-pavlik> +1 they had no resolutions
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: approved 10 Mar minutes
scribe: let's do the same for the april 14 minutes
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve 14 april minutes
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: approved 14 Apr minutes
scribe: okay good
<elf-pavlik> -0 not sure if i had time to understand all resulutions
scribe: nice and quick
<tantek> just the f2f missing
scribe: I think this means we are caught up on minutes, nice
... oh, elf-pavlik is looking to understand resolutions
... this is just approval of minutes
<tantek> harry, any update on the f2f minutes?
<elf-pavlik> +0 if -0 stops sotmething
scribe: so the resolution is, approve the minutes
<harry> tantek - nope, I just got back from flu-land, need to give it another shot.
scribe: just trying to make sure elf-pavlik that you're okay. We don't need to stop unless you need more time to review the minutes.
<tantek> get well soon harry!
AnnB: are there issues in the minutes, elf-pavlik ?
eprodrom: oh there were resolutions from 4-14, okay...
... the question is, elf-pavlik ?
<elf-pavlik> we have just one week to object
eprodrom: I guess he's at a +0
... so if no problem, we'll proceed
<elf-pavlik> yeah, not a big problem!
AnnB: we are still missing minutes from the f2f
eprodrom: yes that's right, I think we had a server issue
<bblfish> I suppose I have an issue on Issue-19, I put that up on for todays agenda.
harry: I had the flu but I'll get that now that I'm back to work
... I have an open action
<AnnB> glad you're feeling better, Harry
<AnnB> can you also plz confirm the Zakim reservation, etc for socialIG?
eprodrom: next telecon is next tuesday at the same time (april 28), I believe I will chair it
... which puts us back on our regular chair schedule
... unless there are objections or reasons to change, let's plan on this meeting next week
... the other issue to discuss quickly is the upcoming face to face
... want to address it, though not in the agenda, because this is usually when we address upcoming f2fs
<elf-pavlik> let's start adding things to agenda page!
eprodrom: do we have issues for the upcoming f2f?
AnnB: the question is, what will the agenda be?
... seems like those who were particularly active on the technical issues won't be there
... what can we do to make it productive
eprodrom: excellent question
... let's look at the wiki page
... we do have a wiki page for the event
... we have demos on the social api candidates
... that will be the main issue
harry: I think we can't get a resolution on the api because we're missing quite a few folks
... but wedo have quite a few people, including people who don't always make it to meetings, but I think we can get european input
<harry> We still need to get written candidates for the APIs
eprodrom: I would really like to see us with written candidates at this time
... we do have the activitypump candidate, which has been updated
<eprodrom> ack ??P8
<harry> ActivityPump is now ready, micropub has been written, not sure re the rest of the approaches
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss demos should focus on approved user stories
eprodrom: while you work on that I will ack tantek
tantek: in reviewing demos from the last face to face
<harry> sandro - if you have an update on the Solid approach by the Paris f2f that would be grand
tantek: had a pretty good mix of candidate demos there
... any demos should list up front which user stories they are demo'ing
... that will show what we're accomplishing
<elf-pavlik> tantek, could you please add this comment to f2f wiki page?
tantek: if that doesn't show the user stories, that will be misleading
... all our user stories involve some interaction
... so if all you're doing is something like a todo list
... that's nothing to do with our user stories
<ericstephan> :-) Hi AnnB
tantek: if you're going to do a demo, please list that and what you're demoing
<sandro> harry, andrei's been busy writing... https://github.com/linkeddata/SoLiD
scribe: if you can't do that, don't demo
<harry> +1 great
<Loqi> sandro has 9 karma
scribe: because you aren't contributing towards doing a social api
sandro: I just wanted to address the agenda of the meeting
... I want to address the personal agenad
... try to get a meeting of the minds on the issues that look to be showstoppers
<ericstephan> @AnnB no prob, it was just to obvious, that's what tripped me up
sandro: several things we've brought up
... things like "we have to solve this to move forward"
... format we're posting, how we're doing extensibility, etc
<elf-pavlik> aaronpk will come
sandro: maybe if we can get indiewebcamp and ldp people to look at differences
<elf-pavlik> Tsyesika will also participate
eprodrom: I'll be participating by phone
<Tsyesika> i'll be at the europe f2f
eprodrom: tsyesika will be there too
<harry> great, we'll have all primary candidates!
sandro: I'm not looking for a decision given lack of people there
... not sure we have enough stakeholders
<elf-pavlik> AFAIK rhiaro also has good grip on IndieWeb stack
sandro: at least look at what we need to do to show one is better than the other
<eprodrom> cwebber2: as for showing demos, Tsyesika will be at the event
<AnnB> I just wanted to say we should schedule the agenda / demos, with sensitivity to time zone .. so people not attending F2F have best chance to attend remotely
<eprodrom> cwebber2: priorities have been emphasised on working on the spec rather than on implementations
<eprodrom> cwebber2: demos can be done from home, discussion of specs are helpful for f2f
<Loqi> Aboyet made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-04-21 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83744&oldid=83743
eprodrom: yes i would favor this as well, because activitypump is relatively new, a melding of several efforts
... I would like to see that discussion process there
bblfish: sorry for having been offline for a while, was snowed under
... yes from my perspective it will be interesting if going on what cwebber2 was saying is to see if what other people doing LDP are doing and how we understand the problem space
... for the larger group, to see what the possibilities there are, it might be a technology everyone there is familiar with
<elf-pavlik> melvster also wants to demo some LDP / SoLiD
bblfish: to see what the detail for what others might be, there may be things we haven't tried yet
... good to play around with ideas from other communities and see how to do that in an LDP land
... see if it would work
<melvster> elf-pavlik: yes, booked my flights and hotel
<Loqi> melvster has 14 karma
bblfish: last time we did demos, thus this time we should paint a broader picture around a certain activity
<melvster> did yet get a response about applying to join the group, hope someone could look at it :)
eprodrom: great, sounds like we have quite a bit of expectations for the upcoming event
... tthat makes a lot of sense
... so we have a lot to go on there
... I'd like to go on to actions and issues
sandro: yes this is a quick thing, I wonder if we can set a deadline like a week before the meeting for people to try to have a reviewed draft of their proposals and really if everyone who cares at all can review those drafts for the meeting for discussion points and etc
... can we accept a deadline like that, and can we also commit to reading the draft in say, a week
<elf-pavlik> +1 reading submitted drafts!
<bblfish> I am happy to help with SoLiD
sandro: and I'm willing to commit to that on having a solid / reading a draft a week bfore
<elf-pavlik> i'll add it to next week agenda!
eprodrom: so a week before the meeting would more or less be next monday (or tues)
... so we already have an activitypump submission
<Tsyesika> i am still working but i can do that
sandro: I hear Tsyesika is already working on the activitypump submission, can she get to that point
<Tsyesika> it's pretty close right now
eprodrom: I think it's good enough for discussion yes
<Tsyesika> i think
tantek: it would be similar for a deadline for demos
... there may be a difference in expectations
... if you want to demo, make a listing of what you'll demo a week before the meeting
... anyone can do technology demos, not interesting
... user story demos, interesting
for the record I don't agree on user demos or tech demos
<melvster> FYI: I have proof of concept of : instant message / decentralized wallet / payment processor / task manager / integrations ... trying to get as much as possible ready for Paris
eprodrom: can we set a deadline on specs and demo deadlines
<tantek> melvster - which user stories?
<elf-pavlik> +1 specs -1 demos
sandro: I don't agree with deadline on demos don't think that's mportant
tantek: I think that's important, if you can't link to a user story on demos, do you even understand what you're doing in this group
sandro: I think you only demo something if it answers a question about one of the proposals
... eg if I don't have an understanding on how to join a list
... show that off
tantek: yoes, that'scoped to user storiess
sandro: but that will come up on review
<AnnB> I appreciate Tantek's effort to be focused and organized... But ".. do you even understand what you're doing in this group.. " sounds harsh to me
tantek: that's the point of voting on them, to focus the group
<melvster> tantek: i think probably a few, I could probably code up quite a few user stories on the day, if requested
eprodrom: let's step back, can we get consensus on specs ready for next tuesday
<melvster> tantek: SolID really answers all the user stories
<Loqi> AnnB has 18 karma
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: have specs for Social API candidates ready for review by 28 Apr 2015 meeting
<Tsyesika> +1 i can
<tantek> melvster - then it should be easy to focus on and demo user stories instead of other things
<aaronpk> +1 boy do i have my work cut out for me ;)
<ericstephan> 0 I'm new no fair voting for me :-)
eprodrom: in tthis case a spec is something thatt explains the api
<melvster> tantek: im happy to demo anything anyone wants me to, or build something on the spot, or nothing at all, happy just to hang out :)
<bblfish> +1 I'd be happy to help Sandro and teams on the SoLiD
eprodrom: and demos are implementations of that api with a demo of it
... seems like we have a strong consensus to have drafts on spec
... don't have to be finalized
... so we hope to have candidates ready
<Loqi> Estephan made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-05-04 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83745&oldid=83713
tantek: another reality, neither you nor I will be there, who will chair?
... arnaud will chairing
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: have specs for Social API candidates ready for review by 28 Apr 2015 meeting
<sandro> bblfish, see https://github.com/linkeddata/SoLiD
tantek: it's up to him to focus the drive of it
eprodrom: that's true
<harry> It looks like W3C might fund me last minute to go to meeting, so I'll make sure this all gets transmitted to Arnaud.
<bblfish> thanks @sandro
<bblfish> see you on gitter
eprodrom: I think what we're proposing is that if people have proposals, out of courtesy for the group, giving people a chance to review and comment by a week is polite
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: have demos for Social API candidates ready for review by 28 Apr 2015 meeting
eprodrom: as second proposal, to have demos for social api candidates ready for review
eprodrom: by next week
<tantek> explicitly listing what user stories are to be demod
AnnB: so what does that mean, voting for demos or you don't have one
eprodrom: personally I think this means showing things
<aaronpk> +1 with explicit listing of which user stories are being demos
eprodrom: rather than demos
<Tsyesika> +0 i won't be able to build a demo for activitypump
<sandro> it's not okay to outlaw last-minute demos.
I have a counter-proposal
<sandro> if they are germaine
<Tsyesika> by the meeting
on the queue
<sandro> -1 as phrased... Let the chairs figure out what's germaine
tantek: you can't really evaluate a social api candidate to see what these can do
eprodrom: that feeling is that this evaluation won't happen entirely at this face to face
... I absolutely think we have to have demos, but I kinda feel like we need to get started with the specs
<bblfish> agree, this is a place to help draw the big picture of what is possible
tantek: yes I guess we have a different approach, I'd like to see that we have things working
... especially in this space
... we've had this convo before
<Loqi> @zahedab :: #ECMAScript @BrendanEich We Implement as we standardize so we don't have specs that don't implement #FluentConf
eprodrom: I agree
hey, I have an adjusted proposal
<melvster> imho SoLiD is a universal API, which should be compatible with any API this group creates, and I think could handle 90%+ of use cases
<tantek> Frankly I'm not really interested in spec / candidate API discussions that are disconnected from user stories
<tantek> melvster - so was WSDL - I don't believe in "universal APIs"
<elf-pavlik> cwebber2: when we go through specifications people can ask for clarifications on how they work with collected user stories
<aaronpk> universal APIs aren't useful, because they can do anything, they don't really do anything specifically
<tantek> and asking people for real world demos is a good way of filtering out such claims
<Loqi> universalAPIs has -1 karma
<aaronpk> at some point you have to make a decision and write things down into an actual spec
<aaronpk> see: OAuth 2.0 spec that was eventually renamed to a "framework" because there isn't enough there
<melvster> tantek: fair enough! My goal is to show you running code on top of SoLiD, and for you to say, 'I like that, I want to use it'
<aaronpk> cwebber2: we lost you at the end
<tantek> melvster - we've had this discussion before - the user stories that are approved are on the wiki
did you lose me entirely?
<tantek> and can you demo them with a real world site, e.g. your own personal site, and produce permalinks for all the outputs?
<tantek> otherwise it's all handwaving
did you miss my suggestion?
<melvster> yes to all
okay, adjusted proposal, in text:
<Loqi> AnnB has 19 karma
<Loqi> AnnB has 20 karma
why not show the spec, tie it to the user stories, and do demonstrations if useful of what people are asking
<Loqi> AnnB has 21 karma
AnnB: how about people show what they want to do whether demo or spec to the agenda
tantek: last time that made it bloated, how about we leave it to the chairs
... a ton of things on the agenda
<bblfish> I think that's a good thing, we propose what we present, and the chairs decide
harry: I'm fine with letting arnaud handle the agenda for the f2f
<tantek> I've updated https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-04#Agenda
harry: the face to face is useful to the high level demos
... of the specs
<KevinMarks> demos are very clarifying
harry: we'll use it to solidify the activitypump, micropub things...
... but decisions will happen *afterwards*
<KevinMarks> running code, then rough consensus
harry: at a teleconf everyone can do
sandro: I agree in a sense there
... I don't think the actual decision to pick one as-is
... the agenda is to get everyone to understand the three candidates
sandro: so we can make the three candidates make sense
<Loqi> sandro has 10 karma
<Loqi> sandro has 11 karma
<Loqi> Pelf made 2 edits to Socialwg/2015-04-28 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83747&oldid=0
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-05-04 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83748&oldid=83745
<Loqi> sandro has 12 karma
eprodrom: is it fair to say that our previous face to face was a lot of demos
<bblfish> ++ for sandro on having the agenda be that we get to know very well the APIs of each of the proposals
eprodrom: and anything that we actually come out with will be an actual evolution of one of those apis
... are we at the point where we're convinced that most are implementable?
... so we can hammer out the next version
tantek: I think the latter, there's a big difference of opinion for people who are actually doing things running on their sites right now vs someday
... I want you to understand my api proposal vs
... we've built stuff that does this
... disconnect in methodology
<KevinMarks> it's legislation vs documentation as usual
<harry> I feel we are circling a bit
eprodrom: I'm a bit concerned about how I'd spend my time as an implementer, I don't like having to track evolving specs
<harry> Basically, it should be obvious - we need a single FPWD relatively soon-ish.
eprodrom: esp when we're talking about 20, 40 user stories
... rewriting that code seems like asking a lot
tantek: I think it's a big challenge to get anything that works
... nobody actually demo'ed a bitg user story
... some demoed more than others
... and some were just tech demos
... I don't see how we believe that anyone has built something that can implement all those user stories
... there's no evidence
... that's what people say every 5 years
... you can do anything with my xml, whatever
... and you can't.
<KevinMarks> a universal API - HTML?
tantek: people are saying "you can do this" vs "show me what's owrking"
bblfish: I think that the previous chair was saying correctly we have limited time, of course you can say from architecture diagram whether soemthing works or not
tantek: diagrams don't make products
<harry> I think tantek is likely right there in the general sense.
bblfish: we have major linked data clouds
... deployed by big companies, actual evidence
... eg linked data protocol
tantek: you yourself aren't using one
<wilkie> let's just use OStatus. people use that right now lol
eprodrom: bblfish, tantek, I'm sorry
bblfish: I'm waiting on what the specs are before I can implement
<Loqi> eprodrom has 13 karma
I'm not scribing a squabble
<tantek> I don't believe architecture diagrams nor claims of wide enterprise deployment
eprodrom: we have questions on whether we are doing specs, demos, or both, because we have no consesnsu
put on the agenda for next week
<harry> We should do demos and spec reviews with whoever is actually there
scribe: we do have items on our agenda for today
<tantek> if you have a solution that you think works, run it on your own site. if you can't do that, why should we believe you
<harry> +1 moving on agenda
<Loqi> eprodrom has 14 karma
(well we did agree to specs by monday/tues at least)
scribe: do we have any updates on open actions or issues
bblfish: we all agree we can do it pragmatically
eprodrom: do you have an open issue/action?
... issue 19?
bblfish: yes, thanks, I put up 19 seems to say that the conslusion was that people should send email
email, irc, wiki should work
scribe: how do we deal with if emails aren't read?
<KevinMarks> sounds liek a webmention use case to me
scribe: it has not been clear to me how the wiki replaces email
<melvster> harry: could you please review my request to join the group (from about 10 days ago) when you are feeling a bit better :)
<KevinMarks> wiki edits -> irc notifications
eprodrom: I think I can address this, that if there are items posted to the email address not addressed, or irc or wiki, we make sure it gets to the right people
<harry> Melvster I notified the chairs that we have some new IE applications. We'll get to it by next meeting.
eprodrom: so if someone were to post to the public ML to someone who has not seen it
<Loqi> too much karma!
eprodrom: makesure they see it
bblfish: okay it's not that the wiki is a callback
... the chairs are a fallback
heh, callback, sorry
scribe: eg in user stories needed help on way things were going
<harry> I believe those user-story discussions are supposed to be part of the IG, not the WG bblfish
scribe: then we have to go through chairs
<harry> Also, note there is no responsibility of people to agree with each other, although we do aim at consensus.
<elf-pavlik> bblfish we continue with User Stories on github! https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr/issues
harry: we've discussed it, it's fine if people are not reading email
<jasnell> we've spent nearly this entire call discussing process and agenda stuff
bblfish: it's in the doc that chairs must participate
harry: if you want to complain, compalin to wendy seltzer
let's not spend time on this please
we are running out of time
<elf-pavlik> PROPOSAL: finish issue-19 for today
<harry> We cannot force people to read your emails or respond to you bblfish
<harry> I suggest you bring up your user-story to the IG so we can keep this WG meetings productive
<Loqi> AnnB has 22 karma
AnnB: I want to support bblfish thought though has been discused a lot
AnnB: in the IG we've discussed that people put their wiki username how they like to be communicated with
... so fi you look at the agenda you see how we have preferred contact info
... I had a question because I"m brand new to github, so I'm having fun with it, put stuff there and didn't get responses
... it's not the same as how you communicate with the whole group, if we see that someone is not part of the thread
... then chairs take action to ping them
<bblfish> ok, thanks
AnnB: and gratitude to the chairs for being willing to do that!
eprodrom: yes we don't want media to get in the way, we're all committed to making it work
... we do have open issues on activitystreams
... have about 5 minutes left to discuss
... eg issue #31
<AnnB> so -- will y'all go put your contact preferences in your wiki User Name, please?
<trackbot> issue-31 -- Refactor "target", "origin" and audience targeting properties -- open
eprodrom: jasnell, if on call, can clarify?
jasnell: this is a 2 part question
... we can split it up if makes it easier
Activity Streams 2.0
jasnell: audience targeting make use of to: : bcc:
... this uses target and etc allowing who gets notified
... current system is currently complicated with primary vs secondary audience
... simplify to cc: and bcc:
remove to and bto
scribe: first change I'd like to make
... discussion on that
... second one has to do with target property
... which we can have a second convo about
... first about audience targeting
eprodrom: as someone who has info on it from a pump.io standpoint
... we use the to and cc pretty consistently
... to: is used if directly sending an activity to a particular person, direct messaging
... Cc: is if broadcasting, and should go into the inboxes of them, but not the "it's directly for you and you must see it"
... this comes down to in practice that stuff that is Cc'ed goes to your feed, stuff to you goes to a direct messaging box
... what we'd have here is the cc would have to carry the weight for both
... we may lose the semantic of "it's directly for you"
... I'm fine with leaving it, my goal is to simplify the vocab as much as possible
... that's really where I'm trying to push it
... so the q is there a way to get the same thing
... with just cc
... a mention object/
scribe: is there a way to use just cc but differentiate it
eprodrom: so if we use mention, that might do it
jasnell: jsut give it some thought, don't need a decision straight away
eprodrom: ok great.
... we are at the top of the hour, best to call it
... thanks to all for participating, see you next week
<eprodrom> Thanks all
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]