Social Web Working Group Teleconference
12 May 2015
See also: IRC log
- eprodrom, +1.503.278.aaaa, jasnell, bblfish, Arnaud, cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme, elf-pavlik, aaronpk, rhiaro, wilkie, Tsyesika, harry
- Ann Bassetti
- Summary of Action Items
<eprodrom> cwebber2, I added it
<trackbot> Date: 12 May 2015
<harry> To be precise, we are at least 6 months off re API
<aaronpk> Zakim: who is on the call?
<jasnell> fyi... I am on the call but I am currently at a conference. it's quite noisy so I'll be on mute and will comment via irc
<cwebber2> eprodrom: oh good!
<aaronpk> urgh zakim
<ben_thatmustbeme> what the?
<ben_thatmustbeme> we can hear the woodshop
<eprodrom> scribenick: rhiaro
<ben_thatmustbeme> scribe: rhiaro
Approval of f2f minutes
arnaud: did we approve the minutes of the call before?
eprodrom: no, let's do that now
... adding to agenda
eprodrom: comfortable to approve them, or wait to next week?
<ben_thatmustbeme> I think everyone has had 2 weeks now
<ben_thatmustbeme> I hink we can approve the minutes
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve minutes of 2015-04-28 telecon
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2015-04-28 telecon
approval of 2f2 minutes
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve minutes of 2015-05-04 telecon
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: Thanks to everyone who scribed
<eprodrom> eprodrom: +1
scribe: Feel free to +0 or -1 if you need more time
<bblfish> +1 confident in rhiaro
<eprodrom> tantek, feel free to participate via IRC but jump on q if you want everyone to pay attention otherwise it's backchannel
<Arnaud> it's unfortunate that the resolutions aren't highlighted
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2015-05-04 f2f
scribe: See no objections
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2015-05-04 F2F2
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2015-05-04 F2F
scribe: Next week's telecon is at normal time
<Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-05-12 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84090&oldid=84089
<eprodrom> tantek, are you able to chair next week?
scribe: if tantek is available next week, we'd like him to chair
<harry> Could be done easily enough in wiki if someone has time
scribe: regular call on 19th
<tantek> I'm at CSSWG f2f next Tue - unlikely to be able to chair
Items in tracker
<tantek> but can chair the week after that
<aaronpk> thx for the link
<harry> How about Arnaud chairs next meeting?
<eprodrom> We'll figure that out
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: Let's discuss open actions and issues that we might be read to move forward with
<trackbot> action-14 -- Harry Halpin to Set up json-ld context for namespace -- due 2014-12-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention finishing action-14 with sandro
<jasnell> it's too noisy for me to speak
<jasnell> but I can update some status here
elf-pavlik: after f2f we set up CORS headers with sandro for activitystreams
... so it works properly in playground etc
<jasnell> following the face to face last week I made a number of edits to the editor's drafts following the resolutions
eprodrom: that means the context we have been using is valid?
elf-pavlik: the one on the draft is served directly from w3c with correct CORS headers, so now you can take examples from the spec and use them in json-ld playground and they work properly
<jasnell> the version of the context located at the namespace URI is based on the most recent working draft, not the editor's draft
eprodrom: thanks sandro and elf-pavlik for handling that
<jasnell> just worth noting
<jasnell> I can't speak, it's too noisy here
<jasnell> I can only type
<elf-pavlik> jasnell, let's discuss it after telecon?
eprodrom: does that mean we need to revisit this action?
<jasnell> no, just need to update when we publish the next WD
eprodrom: People who are implementing now should us ethe version in the WD
<jasnell> but we should publish a new WD very soon
eprodrom: If you care about json-ld
<jasnell> let's put publishing a new WD on next weeks agenda. I can have it ready for review by friday
eprodrom: If we have a new URI for the next version, can we start this process now so we dont' have this problem in the future?
<jasnell> didnt hear the question sorry
<tantek> does JSON-LD fail to handle redirects of context URIs?
<jasnell> yes likely
eprodrom: so that when we got to WD it's already valid
<harry> General best practice is to use editors draft in most WGs
<jasnell> I'll work with Sando and Elf
eprodrom: Shoudl we keep action 14 open or start a new action?
<jasnell> no preference on that
<tantek> having a stable context URI seems like a simple thing - is this really blocking AS2?
<eprodrom> ACTION jasnell work with Sandro and Elf Pavlik to set up new context URI
<trackbot> Error finding 'jasnell'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/users>.
<jasnell> my user id is jsnell
<eprodrom> ACTION jsnell work with Sandro and Elf Pavlik to set up new context URI
<trackbot> Created ACTION-63 - Work with sandro and elf pavlik to set up new context uri [on James Snell - due 2015-05-19].
eprodrom: Other issues and/or actions?
<jasnell> for AS2, we need to discuss the audience targeting
<jasnell> we deferred it from last week
eprodrom: In previous telecons we've gone over raised issues, but that's been controversial. What I'd like to do is do that at the end of the agenda if we have time
<cwebber2> +1 on that approach
eprodrom: Any objections?
<cwebber2> tantek: haha, yeah I didn't notice that
Approving user stories
<tantek> any chance of picking a *social* term rather than marketing?
<harry> Updating context uri is trivial now we have its contents settled.
<aaronpk> Zakim:, unmute me
<cwebber2> tantek: http://www.millennialmedia.com/solutions/advertiser/targeting
<tantek> cwebber2: yeah, sad :(
<Loqi> it'll be ok
aaronpk: I thought the IG was goign to be working on sorting through user stories more, but wasn't sure where that left off, and feels like it's stalled
... Came up during the f2f that it seemed weird we had only 1 approved user story and that it was complex one
... Want to make sure we get that moving again
<tantek> SWAT0 is not complex - not from a user point of view.
eprodrom: I felt like we reached a point with our user stories where we had the round of proposing them, had some discussion, then voted. And we kind of stalled at what does a vote/+/- mean?
<tantek> does everyone here know what SWAT0 stands for?
<harry> Seems obvious to approve all stories where we have consensus (no negatives)
eprodrom: Ben did a fantastic job of sorting the user stories based on their level of support
eprodrom: I feel like that's probably as far as we need to go with this
<bblfish> SWAT0: Social Web Asid Test 0
<Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-05-12 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84091&oldid=84090
eprodrom: Unless we need to dig down into minor or few objections
<tantek> "Acid Test" means it is testing a bunch of different things - it's supposed be non-trivial to implement
<tantek> based on long history of web related acid tests
eprodrom: From my pov I'm happy taking the sorting that we have here and use that as our guide in evaluation
<jasnell> tantek: no no, audience targeting in this context has nothing to do with marketing
eprodrom: But if we want to say everything that's positive or positive+neutral are our user stories, I'm fine with that
<harry> See CSS acid test
<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss IG and user stories
<tantek> jasnell: doesn't matter - the term invokes marketing, thus it's misleading
elf-pavlik: we started a repo on the IG for discussing issues around user stories that don't have full support
... I think we can continue with sorted list from top to bottom, whenever there's an issue we can createa new issue
... We can publish notes so we have an official set of 20-25 user stories with stable URIs
... We can use them as references in implementations, and proposals for implementations
<tantek> why not start with fewer rather than more?
elf-pavlik: As peopel tried to implement them there were some ambiguities found
... So I encourage everyone to use this repo to file issues to clarify and approve user stories
<tantek> ^^ that's a good reason to start with fewer
elf-pavlik: Then we have a document we can refer to
<bblfish> makes sense to me
aaronpk: I think it's important to have a set of approved stories just so otuside observers see more than one
<tantek> if you need simpler user stories to start implementing, start with the ones that were nearly all +1s
aaronpk: This already came up at the f2f
<tantek> I think we should avoid or wait on user stories that are mostly 0s
aaronpk: It would be valuable to approve some limited set that we all agree on them, not necessarilya ll of them
... Before we do that we need to resolve some of the ambiguity
eprodrom: another round of voting?
<tantek> I have the feeling that many folks voted 0 on stories they didn't want to oppose (out of politeness)
eprodrom: One thing we could do is a proposal ..
<tantek> 0 = lack of strong interest
<tantek> so it shouldn't be "approved"
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: accept all user stories that are entirely positive or positive/neutral as official user stories
<tantek> -1 not strict enough
aaronpk: I would be more comfortable with accepting all +1s to keep the list smaller for now
eprodrom: why does it need to be smaller?
<tantek> see above
aaronpk: going to take a long time to get everyone to agree on all the 0s
... a lot of people voted 0 ont hings they weren't sure about
<tantek> right, that too
eprodrom: +0 means I don't care, it does not matter
<jasnell> I'd agree with that. For the initial round, let's approve the ones that are only +1, then revisit the ones with 0's to see
eprodrom: 'I do not object'
<elf-pavlik> eprodrom, let's start with all positive and next telecon we can try adding those with netural
<jasnell> the ones with all +1's are no brainers
eprodrom: I would rather have all positives in
<tantek> the f2f proved that user stories have ambiguities that need resolution, and only by going through them as implementers can they be resolved
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: accept all user stories that are entirely positive as official user stories
<tantek> thus fewer is better
<eprodrom> tantek, strong disagreement there
<jasnell> define "entirely positive" please
<aaronpk> jasnell: stories with only +1 votes
eprodrom: fewer is better but I believe that we have a job to do and just trying to artificially reduce it to fewer I disagree with
<tantek> more specifically: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories#Entirely_Positive
<elf-pavlik> 7 stories + SWAT0
<jasnell> with that definition, +1
eprodrom: Accept all entirely positive, and then further reivew sorted list
aaronpk: my only hesitation is ambiguities in the way they were written
aaronpk: Dont' know the right way to resolve these
... They're minor
aaronpk: Could just be askign writer of stories their intent
<cwebber2> aaronpk: raise them on-list maybe?
<jasnell> for the ones with 0, it would be helpful to understand why they are 0
eprodrom: which ones do you want to resolve?
<tantek> problem is difference of methodologies: incremental, vs. take on too much, never get anything done
<cwebber2> and we can get agreements and then edits to the wiki?
aaronpk: I think only two places I had a question
<elf-pavlik> aaronpk, please use https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr/issues
<jasnell> it's not useful to officially stamp a user story that very few people have interest implementing
aaronpk: okay to do this right now?
eprodrom: proposal first
<jasnell> even if they don't have objections to the user story itself
bblfish: In the f2f we had a number of stories that revealed strenghts of different ways of doing things
<tantek> jasnell + 1 for "it's not useful to officially stamp a user story that very few people have interest implementing"
bblfish: some of the -1s were comments such as 'something cannot be done' or is 'too difficult'
<aaronpk> agreed with jasnell there
<harry> Maybe just aim for ones with majority +1?
<tantek> why not approve only a few for now?
<tantek> what's the rush?
<tantek> we can approve more later
<aaronpk> current proposal is the 7 that are only +1 votes which seems like a good start
bblfish: one way of reducing stories is, for example in the meeting peopel wrote up stories in detail using their protocols. That helps reduce stories a lot, we had only 4/5/6 written up, it's a lot of work
... When one writes them up like this one realises implications
... Getting entirely positives seems reasonable
<tantek> there should be a bit of an implementation challenge, if you can't make progress on SWAT0 and the first 7 user stories, then you shouldn't be advocating for MORE user stories :P
<harry> Yep, approve the all +1s now, more later if needed
<aaronpk> i think the rest of them need to be gone through like a few of us did before the f2f before we can accept more use stories
<tantek> let's raise the bar here
eprodrom: proposal right now is to approve entirely positives as 'official'
<tantek> make it based on progress, rather than politics
eprodrom: So we have some working through of the rest to do?
<tantek> and if no one bothers to go through the remaining user stories to clarify or attempt implementing, then clearly there is insufficient interest to accept them.
<tantek> vote with your code
ben_thatmustbeme: the entirely +1 and some 0 are really minor minor point that could be corrected with a couple of lines
... but I would not want to make them officially approved until we've got the *best* wording we all agree on
<tantek> yes the "some 0 are really minor minor point that could be corrected with a couple of lines" was what the IG was supposed to drive to resolution
ben_thatmustbeme: it's not that people were saying they weren't planning on implementing, but that they were good with minor quibbles
<tantek> have heard anything back from the IG about that?
eprodrom: I'm not sure what the resolution fo a 0 is
<tantek> has the IG resolved any of the 0s on any of the user stories?
eprodrom: do we try to make someone care about them? Do we push them to commit in one way or another?
... I would like to leave it open, maybe one way we can progress is to approve the top ones
... ask everyoen to re-review user stories
<elf-pavlik> sounds good!
eprodrom: and next week propose approving the next group
... sound reasonable?
<tantek> e.g. a resolution could be via a github issue regarding the "0", discussion on that issue, and determining either the flaw in the user story, or a clarification / reduction in scope that would turn the "0" into a "1".
<tantek> where's the proposal?
<bblfish> so the action is to look at the next batch next week
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: accept all user stories that are entirely positive as official user stories
<aaronpk> as linked here https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories#Entirely_Positive
<jasnell> with an action on everyone to review that next batch and determine if the 0 votes can made explicitly -1 or +1
<bblfish> Btw. +0 means - there were 70 user stories, and this did not look like I could be bothered about it
<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to remind clarification workflow
<tantek> for the others, I'd rather not waste time discussing them on telcon until efforts have been made async to resolve the 0s
<jasnell> I would argue that, if someone is +-0 to a user story, they really ought to be -1 on making it an official user story
<tantek> e.g. push those back to the IG
elf-pavlik: in IG we're using this github repo to discuss clarifications, changes etc
<tantek> jasnell is right
elf-pavlik: I would like everyone to use repo to clarify ambiguities
... before next week discuss those that have 0s
<bblfish> elf-pavlik: can you put a link to this in the right place? Perahps on the front page of the WG - if it is not already there
elf-pavlik: I think this is the best place to discuss for everyone
<tantek> why "before next week" ?
<tantek> who is pressuing this rush?
eprodrom: we're goign to try to do this next week
<Arnaud> shoot.. lost phone connection
<wilkie> yeah, just focus on the +1 user stories. that doesn't mean implementations can't do those and also some of the +0s too
<eprodrom> tantek, can you join the queue if this is normative discussion?
<tantek> what wilkie said
<eprodrom> Or just backchannel?
<eprodrom> Again, I'll assume that if you're not on the queue, typing in IRC is just backchannel
eprodrom: I'm assuming if you're typing in IRC it's just backchannel if you're nt on q
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say no need to rush evaluation of remaining user stories, that's the IGs job to process
<tantek> and if anyone wants to push a particular user story, build it, and do a walk through as folks did for the f2f
<tantek> those were very useful writeups
eprodrom: we just had a vote
<elf-pavlik> +1 tantek
<tantek> no need to waste telcon time on this
eprodrom: we did have the voting and writeup process
... I'd rather not ignore them
<tantek> everyone can pursue making user stories work that they think are interesting
eprodrom: Lots of them are very good
<tantek> no need to waste everyone's time on mostly "0" stories
<tantek> or worse
eprodrom: That is discussion for next week
<tantek> it's only ignoring if no one codes them
<eprodrom> tantek, That's a discussion for next week, unless you wantt to explicitly say that these aren't in bounds at all
<tantek> or no one writes them up
<tantek> the way people did for the f2f
<eprodrom> tantek, they are all written up
<eprodrom> And all got +1s and some 0s
<tantek> no they're not
<tantek> not like at the f2f
<tantek> that's the point
<tantek> that's how progress was made at the f2f
eprodrom: We just decied to approve these
<tantek> if you care about a user story, do a write up of how your implementation does it, the way aaronpk and others did for the f2f
<tantek> no need for the group to discuss that
eprodrom: We just made a decision based on the votes
<tantek> and if no one does any such write-ups then that indicates people don't care about a user story
eprodrom: we had all +1s
<ben_thatmustbeme> RESOLVED: accept all user stories that are entirely positive as official user stories
<Zakim> aaronpk, you wanted to support the build/walkthrough of user stories before we approve any more
RESOLUTION: approve all +1 user stories
<jasnell> for the batch that just got approved, an action should be taken to write up additional detail for each, make sure they are clear
<tantek> and yes we should IGNORE any user stories that no one wants to put the energy into implementing or clarifying
<tantek> that's a very good filter
aaronpk: For any *more* user stories I'm not compfortable approving them if there are any 0s *unless* someone has done a protocol writeup or built it
... Doing that myself gave me a much better understanding of the details of the stories, in a way I did not get when I read it the first time and voted +1
<elf-pavlik> +1 aaronpk
aaronpk: So even though I voted +1 on some I did not have the understanding of them until after I did the writeup
<jasnell> +1 aaronpk
<tantek> I'll note that this includes a few user stories that I myself proposed. So it's tough work for everyone.
<cwebber2> not for all of them
eprodrom: I want to confirm, did we have writes ups for all with +1s?
aaronpk: no, only 3 or 4 of them
<cwebber2> I do agree with aaronpk that doing the mapping write-up does help clarify a lot
eprodrom: so we just confirmed some that weren't written up
<jasnell> let's propose an action to require a write up for all of the just approved user stories
<tantek> eprodrom, because the others all have doubts
eprodrom: if that's the bar we want to set that's fine, but we *already* wrote them up and voted, so seems kind of high
<jasnell> note, we can have another vote to remove a user story from the list if it becomes obvious that no one intends to implement it
<tantek> existence of doubts = higher burden of approval
aaronpk: the reason I'm hesitant is because for all the rest somebody had a doubt
eprodrom: 0 represents don't care, not doubt
... these are ones everyone was positive or neutral on
... Not sure writeups are a good way to spend our time
<tantek> we learned from the protocol walk through s that "*already* wrote them up and voted" is insufficient eprodrom
eprodrom: Next item on agenda
<tantek> that's the point - we got that out of the f2f
<jasnell> some level of expanded detail is going to be the only way we can verify that we've actually met the case
Starting work on a brainstorming a joint Social API FPWD
<tantek> since we have learned that, we shouldn't blindly go by what we thought we knew before
<cwebber2> aaronpk: effectively not everything is going to get impmlemented from the user stories, maybe we should be doing more refinement as we go through implementation?
eprodrom: harry can you say something?
<elf-pavlik> tantek, aaronpk you can simply warn people that you will -1 stories which don't have implementation walk through
<eprodrom> harry, ?
<cwebber2> ie, maybe the list we have is a good list that's mostly sorted, and as we implement we can come back and possibly challenge some of them
<cwebber2> and find which ones we've hit a union of implementation in between our implementations
<ben_thatmustbeme> note btw, that 0s did not represent don't care much of the time.... they would often have commentary explaining it
eprodrom: I'll try to address this while we wait for harry
<tantek> cwebber2, yes, I agree with incremental progress based on implementation demand, not basd on "next telcon"
<aaronpk> cwebber2: +1 for incremental progress!
eprodrom: harry go ahead
... giving up on harry
<bblfish> harry has telecommunication problems
eprodrom: harry proposed in order for us to get to FPWD for the API would be to develop a joint draft basedon 3 candidates
... and neutral editors
... idea was to come up with opinions on that
... one thing we could do today is have a resolution of deciding that's a way we can go forward
eprodrom: wold like to open up for discussion
<cwebber2> though maybe I will be, but I want to understand the topic better :)
eprodrom: idea is to have a consensus FPWD
<cwebber2> is this for an intersection of the implementations, or?
<cwebber2> I accidentally hung up
<bblfish> no can't hear cwebber2
<Tsyesika> i can't hear him either
cwebber2: is this an intersection of the implementations? Seems like this is coming off the end of the f2f where it seemed liek there was optimism that there is convergence?
... Is that what we're talking about?
eprodrom: yes, idea to come up with a FPWD basedon that work
<cwebber2> heh :)
<cwebber2> sorry :)
<tantek> note that optimism that there is convergence != convergence itself
eprodrom: and that we would have 'neutral' editors, not implying we're not working to same goal
<tantek> better to continue with optimism and separate iteration
eprodrom: I like this concept, I"m not thrilled with a strict intersection
<tantek> rather than jump to conclusions prematurely
<tantek> I think what we have now is "working"
eprodrom: at this point that would be 'use http'
<tantek> so let's not mess with it for now
eprodrom: but maybe some kind of resolution of the three proposals
<cwebber2> this is new
<tantek> in the hopes that we see *more* incremental convergence
<jasnell> one document, three sections, one for each proposal. should be straightforward
<bblfish> do we have two cwebber's?
<jasnell> then we can work on consolidating
<tantek> rather than prematurely forcing some form of hybrid mess
<tantek> jasnell - sorry to say but that's a horrible idea
cwebber2: having talked to tsyesika and rhiaro after last f2f and both seemed very optimistic that there was a lot of opportunity for intersection
... I do agree with evan that with the current state of proposals we don't have a lot of intersection, but seemed liek a lot of optimism from aaronpk rhiaro and tsyesika and also sandro
<tantek> if there's so much opportunity for iteration and convergence, let each draft do so independently
<tantek> and at its own pace
cwebber2: that there is a triange of overlap
... I think what might be interesting is to see more technical overlap and prove that this can happen
<tantek> let separate documents copy each other at will
<tantek> rather than forcing anything into one document
<jasnell> separate docs works fine too. I don't really care so long as something get's written down that we can start iterating on
<tantek> premature/forced convergence is the fastest way to kill the progress we're making
cwebber2: I'd rather not get stuck forever trying to figure out the intersection, but would like opportunity to see if that could happen
... don't want it to hold us up from implementation for too long
<ben_thatmustbeme> i would agree with tantek, start with sepearte versions. maybe keep an idea toward future convergance
<tantek> there is no "hold us up from implementati
cwebber2: proposal would be for the members who felt like they were hitting convergence could write up, and show we're all on the same page
... I wonder how much could be done over the enxt couple of weeks to try to hit that convergence, so we have a sensible timeline and have this opportunity to progress this?
bblfish: I agree with that
... There should be proposals for development
... We should keep in mind we need to finish this, so we should see how many existing specs we can use so we reinvent as little as possible
... I'm happy to put forward some convergence ideas
<tantek> if you're spec-ing without implementing, you're likely doing something wrong
eprodrom: from the mailing list harry proposed a group come together to work on a document
... aaronpk, rhiaro and tsyesika agreed
... there was a quesiton on who would step up from SoLiD
<aaronpk> can't we spec while implementing?
eprodrom: wold you step up?
bblfish: I'm trying to do all kinds of things
... We can line up things in a sketchy way
... To see what fits without going all the way to writing a document
... like agile programming
... we need to know where we're going, which parts look like they fit together and identify those then have discussions around that, to go forward
<tantek> note that micropub, microformats, webmention etc. were all simultaneously spec'd and implemented - that kind of back/forth iteration keeps thing real and minimal
<tantek> instead of academic and bloated
harry: I was thinking that we grab three people, one from each proposal and a neutral editor, and over next week peopel can learn respec
<jasnell> I can offer help with respec also
harry: we can start a sketchy document on common points of convergence
... so we have something to start working on
... It's good to push forward
<Arnaud> we haven't heard back from sandro
eprodrom: main objections are worry that we put together a frankenstein monstor of incompatible features
... I'm concerned an intersection would not be very complete
<Tsyesika> it might be a good base to build off though?
eprodrom: What's next steps for document after it's written?
harry: we should try intersection, then see if we get convergence as we move outwards witha pproved user stories
... if we make progress in a couple of months we can try to get consensus on (??) level
... we can get implementations, and revisit strong and weak points with editors
... and help from other people on github
eprodrom: will put a proposal up
harry: also depends on free time of editors, to find people who have time to commit to work on the document
elf-pavlik: having this attempt to find convergence doesn't limit other people to develop their specs independantly
... if someone was looking for common ground this is a great idea I will support and participate in
... if people want to put more time independantly to develop their spec there is still space for that
... I don't think those efforts exclude ach other
... I would prioritise implementing things we already all agree on
... everyone voluntarily contributes, if editors of other specs can dedicate time to look for convergence that's great
harry: the point is to start with making it clear what we already agree on
<elf-pavlik> +1 harry
bblfish: perhaps we can also work out points of converance on mailing list so we get feedback from group about what makes sense
... we can have a thread on the list for finding points of convergence
... think about two things that could go together, and people can push back if they know what works
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: aaronpk, Tsyesika, and sandro to work with rhiaro to develop a convergence document
eprodrom: should we put a timebox on this document
... four weeks from now?
harry: I'd say see how it goes. A few weeks for a first draft. Would like to see something solid in 2 months
<cwebber2> can we try to push for some actual objectives
<jasnell> +0.5 ... don't think it needs to be one document but as long as *something* get's written down
<cwebber2> again, I think a minimal objective could be "common format"
<aaronpk> to be clear, this is not a proposal about writing the converged spec, right?
<cwebber2> to be posted between instances
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: aaronpk, Tsyesika, and sandro to work with rhiaro to develop a convergence document with first draft by 9 June
eprodrom: this is about writing a convergance document
<tantek> -1 we're not going to make progress by forcing converged documents with artificial dates
<Arnaud> again, we haven't heard from sandro, have we?
<aaronpk> can you please define "convergence document"?
<tantek> counter proposal is to keep iterating the documents separately
<elf-pavlik> Bearer token
<elf-pavlik> follow your nose
<jasnell> absolutely disagree tantek: having *something* written down is better than having nothing written down. it gives us a starting point.
harry: systematically going through common points, what vocabulary we can agree on
<cwebber2> aaronpk: Tsyesika: maybe you should help agree on what you think a helpful convergence doc would be
<tantek> and encourage re-use of ideas back/forth
harry: probably minimal in beginning, then we can stretch it out
<Tsyesika> cwebber2: more or less what harry just said
<cwebber2> okay great
<ben_thatmustbeme> tantek, that was discussed. this doesn't prevent seperate spec dev.
<tantek> let convergence happen naturally, not by force of committee
<aaronpk> +1 to get *something* written down for review by people
<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 72 karma
<tantek> then don't call it "a convergance document"
<eprodrom> tantek, can you take the floor and make this case
eprodrom: can you make the case for -1
... also, the people who are named in this proposal, could you speak up about working on this doc even if this propoasl doesn't go through?
... can you expand on your -1?
... we have 3/4 peopel who want to work on this document
<cwebber2> tantek: I think we're still planning on doing that
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say "a convergance document" is the absolute wrong framing and premature risks the progress we've made. Instead encourage rapid iteration of separate
<jasnell> fine, don't call it a "convergence document"... call it "an initial bunch of ideas written down that we can start iterating on"
<tantek> cwebber2, then do just the independent iteration - there's no rush for a convergence document
<eprodrom> tantek, counterproposal?
eprodrom: counter proposal?
<Arnaud> sandro isn't on the call
<eprodrom> tantek, can you phrase it as a proposal?
<tantek> counter PROPOSAL: encourage rapid iteration of separate documents (what we're already doing) and borrowing/sharing of ideas. let convergence happen naturally, not by force of committee.
eprodrom: tantek, can you phrase as proposal please?
tantek, I think that's how it would happen anyway
<ben_thatmustbeme> I think it is useful to list out the places where we are making convergance, thats is really all we are talking about
<aaronpk> I do want to get something written down working with Tsyesika rhiaro and sandro
<elf-pavlik> we can +1 both, they don't exclude each other
eprodrom: this isn't an either/or
<tantek> rhiaro: if that's how it would happen anyway then no reason to VOTE on something additional
<aaronpk> just so that these ideas after the f2f are not only in our heads
harry: I do expect that the three separate documents would continue iterating
<tantek> rhiaro, you just justified a -1 vote for eprodrom proposal
harry: be good to record convergence
<bblfish> agree this does not seem to be an either or
<bblfish> so we could all +1 both
<cwebber2> yes, and I intend to move into implementation phase anyway
<cwebber2> on the activitypump document
<jasnell> Proposal: let's not worry on exactly how many documents are actually written and focus on just getthing *something* written
<cwebber2> so I don't think they're totally at odds
tantek, then I +1 both
<tantek> jasnell, something *has* been written
<cwebber2> +1 to both :)
<elf-pavlik> +1 both
<tantek> that's the point - let's not get distracted by an academic convergence document
eprodrom: vote on tantek and jasnell's proposals?
<eprodrom> -1 to tantek, +1 to jasnell
+1 to just getting things done
<bblfish> +1 to tantek, +1 to jasnell
<tantek> +1 to just keep getting things done
<aaronpk> +1 to just keep shipping shipping shipping
<Tsyesika> +1 getting things done is good
<cwebber2> I'm confused as to what some of those votes are
<ben_thatmustbeme> this is getting really abiguous
harry: we *are* supposed to converge on a spec eventually
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: let's not worry on exactly how many documents are actually written and focus on just getthing *something* written
I'm +1 for writing a document about convergence of apis
<elf-pavlik> +1 rhiaro
scribe: so we'll just get some documents written
<aaronpk> !meme just keep shipping shipping shipping [[|]]]
<ben_thatmustbeme> thats the oddest resolution i have seen
scribe: I'd like to ask tsyesika, aaronpk, rhiaro and sandro to work on a document if you'd like to do so
<cwebber2> plus one on good things are good
<eprodrom> Yeah, I don't feel like it says much
<Tsyesika> cwebber2: indeed :)
<elf-pavlik> ciao all o/ thanks eprodrom for chairing and rhiaro for scribing
<bblfish> well it seems its ok to get a convergence document going, since it's a document
<cwebber2> hm we need to end the call right? how to do that again?
<eprodrom> cwebber2, I'll do it
<bblfish> I think when everyone leaves
<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting