From W3C Wiki

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

15 Sep 2015

See also: IRC log


elf-pavlik, Arnaud, AnnB, wilkie, csarven, sandro, cwebber2, tantek, rhiaro


<elf-pavlik> started based protoype for implementing our deliverables

<trackbot> Date: 15 September 2015

<tantek> csarven: yes I saw your webmention implementation/documentation - very interesting and helps broaden the space!

<cwebber2> joining, 1sec

<tantek> The latest thing I've built is photo posts on my site

<cwebber2> tantek: I wrote a json-ld parser that can do expansion, so far

<tantek> I'm spending more time on the implied post type algorithm than on trying to improve AS

<cwebber2> well mostly, a couple of bugs

<cwebber2> on the "what people have built lately" front

<tantek> and csarven - your webmention implementation was a month or so ago right? anything since then?

<tantek> elf-pavlik: sure! add the upcoming link of IG agenda too!

<csarven> tantek I've made a PR for AS2 3-4 weeks ago. Hoping that James will review/merge soon ;)

<sandro> phone number: +1-617-324-0000 There is a meeting number: 642 112 960 The password is still 'socl'

<tantek> csarven++ thank you for contributing to the spec

<csarven> tantek Working on LinkedResearch as per usual...

<Loqi> csarven has 15 karma


<cwebber2> huge pile of scheme :)

<wilkie> I can scribe

<wilkie> cwebber2: very cool

<AnnB> wilkie ++

<wilkie> cwebber2: somebody else who uses scheme to process stuff. good to see :)

<cwebber2> wilkie: :D

<tantek> wilkie++

<wilkie> :)

<Loqi> wilkie has 20 karma

Arnaud: welcome. as usual we will start with admin. first one: approval of the minutes

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approval of Minutes of 8 September 2015

Approval of the Minutes of Sept. 8th

<elf-pavlik> +1

<tantek> +1

<rhiaro> +1

Arnaud: any objections/concerns?

<cwebber2> +1

<Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approval of Minutes of 8 September 2015

Charter Update

<tantek> sandro, are you on the phone and can say something about where we are with W3T and charter?

Arnaud: there was a review by the members to update.

<tantek> sandro: W3M has to review it the results, which they will do tomorrow morning.

<tantek> AnnB: W3M = W3C Management

AnnB: W3M is the management of the W3C, if it is not clear

<tantek> how long does W3M review of the results take?

<tantek> right

<sandro> Probably about 30 seconds during their next meeting, which is 9am ET tomorrow.

Arnaud: there is a proposal from tantek to start using the new license and republish the AS spec (I assume the two different documents: core/vocab) using the new license

<tantek> if we can agree to it today, perhaps we can do it by next Tuesday?

Arnaud: any comments?

<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-09-15

<tantek> PROPOSAL: Start using the new license and republish the AS spec (two different documents: core/vocab) using the new license

Arnaud: two possibilities: the WG has to agree and the editor has to commit the update.

<tantek> +1 :)

Arnaud: if we agree on the proposal then we can ask the editor to carry out the resolution of that update

<AnnB> +1

sandro: we can just have him publish at his earliest convenience

Arnaud: exactly. any questions/concerns

<tantek> I would prefer that csarven's pull request be considered, but am ok with publishing WD without.

<csarven> Nothing critical.. only a new example.

<cwebber2> +1

<elf-pavlik> +1

sandro: I saw csarven say something about PRs not merged, so should we see what changes would be made there?

<csarven> I don't know if a new example is significant for license stuff..

Arnaud: I would hope not just the license gets changed, but also any normal updates and revisions.

<sandro> +1 assuming James agrees there've been no substantive changes not backed up by WG resolution

<tantek> csarven, up to you, +1 or +0 accordingly per your preference

Arnaud: I'd like to ask jasnell and see that he agrees.

sandro: I voted +1 *repeats comment above in IRC*

tantek: I'm assuming jasnell would object if there are any problems.

<tantek> agree with Arnaud

Arnaud: I'm a bit concerned about your concerns because we would assume problems and issues are handled by the WG.

<elf-pavlik> +1 sandro (clarifying +1 just for license no other changes)

<tantek> sandro: James may have made substantial changes that he has not yet notified the working group, and wanted make sure that he's not just slipping those changes through.

Arnaud: I see all +1s so we can call it resolved

<Arnaud> RESOLVED: Start using the new license and republish the AS spec (two different documents: core/vocab) using the new license

<sandro> no other SUBSTANTIVE changes -- editorial are fine.

<tantek> sandro, presumably examples too? like csarven's?

<sandro> examples are always editorial

Arnaud: I was hoping we'd be able to talk about AS with jasnell and the issues that are open. but we won't be able to do that.
... maybe later if he can join
... so we will change the agenda order to talk about the social api

<tantek> eprodrom: I'd like to talk about the charter change

eprodrom: I'd like to make a comment about the charter change
... I'd wonder if now would be the time to talk about other changes to the charter

AnnB: can you specify what other changes?

<tantek> eprodrom: like extending the charter

eprodrom: at least the duration of the working group
... our schedule has us finishing by the end of next year which is optimistic

<sandro> End date 31 December 2016

eprodrom: we had talked about changing the schedule/duration of the WG
... the only reason I bring it up is because we had talked about changing the charter months ago and talked about other changes
... it might make sense to start that process now

Arnaud: do you want to make those changes? sounds like you are motivated

<AnnB> thanks, Evan

eprodrom: it feels like we have made a small change to the charter and we see that it takes a while to get that process going and don't want to be slow about that

Arnaud: if we only need an extension in time we don't need a new charter for that
... if we are in a situation where we are out of time and need more and making progress we can make the case and a duration will be granted

<tantek> re: schedule - I'm on the queue for that!

<AnnB> I appreciate eprodrom trying to keep us realistic with schedule and commitments

eprodrom: in our charter we do mention a schedule we are nowhere near hitting, but we do mention places to go to see an updated schedule

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to provide update re: schedule

eprodrom: if we don't have changes to make to the charter, we don't have a problem then


tantek: at the last telecon I was given the action of changing the schedule link on the wiki
... because we didn't want to change the schedule on the charter so we could say the only change was license


tantek: I did my best to update our schedule based on what I know and what we've accomplished
... the schedule on the wiki is greatly expanded than before. please take a look if you are working.
... I left some of the optimist dates because if people are motivated they could complete things by that time

<rhiaro> Okay, I'll probably add to / amend social api schedule soonish

tantek: there was a request for more detail and I tried to provide that

sandro: I agree with all that. no need for a charter change on those constraints.
... I want to amend the agenda to talk about F2F

Arnaud: yeah, we can do that now if you want


Arnaud: as you may have known, our F2F in Japan was canceled

sandro: the options for the next one that people proposed has been San Francisco and Boston.
... we need 8 weeks notice so we have mid-November at the earliest
... we can do something earlier if everybody is ok with that

<tantek> is anyone here going to Redecentralize Conference? E.g. I had no plans.


<hhalpin> To close to Christmas will be hard for people, so I'd aim for mid-Nov or early Dec.

sandro: but there is Redecentralize in London people may want to go to, so I'd say mid-December

<csarven> January++ :)

<tantek> I don't care about conflicting with redecentralize because no one here has said it conflicts

<hhalpin> Sounds like time for a Doodle poll

Arnaud: I want to clarify: when sandro says it is either SF or Boston, SF has two possibilities

<rhiaro> +1 walkability

<tantek> SF is convenient - can use public transit from SFO BART, and MUNI in town

<tantek> SF has more walkability

Arnaud: san francisco or south bay, one has good transportation but expensive and the other is cheap but you'll need a car

<tantek> also Seattle was a possibility, Annb?

Arnaud: we are still discussing it. no conclusion so far.

<elf-pavlik> +1 good uplink for remote participation ;)

tantek: seattle was also a possibility?

AnnB: my concern is that Seattle is pretty far away from everything and we should opt for somewhere most people can attend

<hhalpin> One advantage of Seattle would be possibility of engaging Microsoft. In SF, we could engage with folks from OpenSocial and AppFusions who were very supportive.

<cwebber2> boston is easiest for me, but San Francisco I know people as well

<tantek> hhalpin, have you had any contact with Twitter folks?

<hhalpin> (but disappeared for reasons that are still kinda unkown!)

<rhiaro> +1 Boston

<cwebber2> being on a limited budget, finding crashspace is probably necessary for me to make it

<cwebber2> boston would be great though :)

<ben_thatmustbeme> Boston is certainly easiest for me

<hhalpin> Yes, I have lots of Twiter contacts, they are too busy for standards work they said but are happy to watch

<tantek> if we meet in SF we may be able to get some Twitter people to stop by midday? It's a quick MUNI ride for them.

<hhalpin> and if they like it, you never know, implement

Arnaud: the plan for now is for the chairs to figure out what they are doing and where can host and when we figure that out, we will get more input from the WG

<hhalpin> I'll ping my contacts at Twitter.

<tantek> hhalpin right, can we get them to show up for an hour or two? or join us for lunch?

<hhalpin> I know mostly the security folks but gave a talk there where we mentioned AS2.0, had mostly positive reaction.

<tantek> even informal participation from them would be invaluable

Arnaud: we'll get back with options to choose from

<cwebber2> wilkie: btw, since you're also a schemer, maybe I should get feedback from you on activitystuff once I start to approach 0.1 for sanity :)

<hhalpin> Agreed tantek. As soon as we have a date, I'll see if we can drag some Twitter folks over

<tantek> thank you hhalpin

<rhiaro> Yeah, Boston just easiest, but happy to travel

Arnaud: boston seems favored

<tantek> I favor SF but can do Boston/Cambridge no problem

<eprodrom> Me too

Arnaud: let's move on

Social API

<tantek> rhiaro can you give us an update?

Arnaud: I admit I missed last week's call. it is not clear where we stand, so can somebody tell me what is going on?

<AnnB> in terms of "dragging others in" .. are there people / groups with toes in this water in Boston area, or maybe NYC?

Arnaud: what is stopping us from making progress

<tantek> rhiaro: have not really worked on anything social for a couple of weeks. have talked with aaronpk and tsyesika a bunch

rhiaro: I have not worked on much this past week. but I've working on a draft of a schedule maybe for next week.

<tantek> rhiaro: can work on providing a draft of a schedule by TPAC

Arnaud: do you have an idea of what the draft will look like?

rhiaro: yes

<tantek> rhiaro: I have an idea in my head [of what a first draft could look like]

<elf-pavlik> cafe here closes in 10min, much appreciated if we can take 5min for

<tsyesika> :)

rhiaro: I think some of it is in tsyesika's head too

Arnaud: so the three of you have in mind what the solution looks like and can put it in a draft

rhiaro: definitely

Arnaud: great news
... we can say if the three of you are in agreement that this is something the rest of the WG would be ok with it
... anything else with respect to the social API


<tantek> agreed we should skip AS discussion this week

Additional Topics


Arnaud: I haven't seen jasnell joining, so not sure there is anything AS related we could talk about and make progress
... any other topic we could talk about?

elf-pavlik: after last week tantek made it clear implementation is very important.
... I made a simple wiki proposal for a syntax, a read-write API for federation, and federation.
... I want to people to look at it and discuss how to break up a implementation.

<tantek> hmm - I don't think such project micromanagement of implementation is really needed - I mean if it helps your implementation great

elf-pavlik: and come up with something that can express everything we wish to express

Arnaud: anything else?

tantek: I understand the value of having an implementation plan.
... I also break up things into parts. but I don't see the need to do that within the group or in a coordinated fashion.
... our wiki lists actionable things for people to do. we have user stories... so as an implementor: get a user story done.

<jasnell> my apologies, I ended up double booked today and won't be able to join today as expected. I'll catch up on the notes later on and weigh in on the mailing list

tantek: or edit your comment on a user story vote to say "I've implemented this"
... if these are useful to others, great. elf-pavlik, are you committed to implementing these on your own site?

<tantek> SWAT0 federation was implemented with webmention and PuSH

elf-pavlik: yes. that's how I found out to do this. and from that want to know how people are implementing these user stories. what syntax they use, what the data model looks like, etc.
... I want that feedback is there without waiting for API discussion for other implementers

<tantek> elf-pavlik: if you like that plan, just start building it yourself

Arnaud: thank you elf-pavlik. I agree with tantek that it is a nice effort to coordinate, but nobody is bound to this approach.
... might be a practical way to test interoperability.

<elf-pavlik> why so little implementations so far from participants of this group so far?

Interest Group

AnnB: I liked what I read in the minutes that you decided to pursue the spirit of user stories rather than it was as written.
... the objections were mostly about how the user story was written and it was unclear what the IG should be working on
... I'm not sure if the IG is valuable.

tantek: I think there is value in the interest group. and there needs to be a leader that asserts the value of the interest group.

<Loqi> Sandro made 2 edits to Socialwg

tantek: the interest group was there to help collect input from users and people who want social web standards and want them to do This but do not necessarily want or are able to implement them
... I would still like to see this. the interest group needs to step up and do something instead of asking what to do.

Arnaud: there was a concern that past groups on this topic got bogged down on details and the interest group is for breaking that down and having a place for those details.

<tantek> that's true - you (IG) doesn't have to have teleconferences

<tantek> also - IG can use IRC to keep conversations going on

Arnaud: i think it is reasonable to fall back to this mode where it is there if people want to use it or not.

AnnB: I think that this is valuable for those reasons, but it may not be working like that in reality.
... I'm not sure if the industry is connected to smaller groups or communities. I'm only chair because mark stepped out, but maybe I'm not the best person for that.

tantek: if you can't find a reason to have a teleconference, then do not. and that's ok. just when you need it.

<tantek> happy to encourage IG conversations in this channel #social

Arnaud: I hope this helps

AnnB: thanks

Arnaud: anything else?

<eprodrom> +1

Arnaud: if not, we can finish early

<eprodrom> Thanks Arnaud !

<AnnB> thanks Arnaud

Arnaud: alright let's close the call

<AnnB> yay wilkie

Arnaud: thanks every one. we will talk next week!

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items