View source for Socialwg/2015-09-22-minutes

= Social Web Working Group Teleconference =

== 22 Sep 2015 ==

See also: [http://www.w3.org/2015/09/22-social-irc IRC log]

== Attendees ==

; Present
: sandro, wseltzer, aaronpk, Arnaud, AnnB, cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme, eprodrom, tsyesika, tantek
; Regrets
: elf-pavlik, jsnell
; Chair
: eprodrom
; Scribe
: ben_thatmustbeme

== Contents ==

* [[#agenda|Topics]]
*# [[#item01|Approval of Minutes From Last Week]]
*# [[#item02|Charter Update]]
*# [[#item03|F2F Doodle Poll]]
*# [[#item04|Activity Streams 2.0]]
*# [[#item06|Social API]]
*# [[#item07|Additional Agenda Items]]
*# [[#item08|New and Important Issues]]


-----





&lt;trackbot&gt; Date: 22 September 2015

I can scribe

&lt;cwebber2&gt; thank you ben_thatmustbeme

&lt;eprodrom&gt; scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme

&lt;scribe&gt; scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme

&lt;eprodrom&gt; Ah there we go

&lt;tantek&gt; will edit the wiki shortly

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-22 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-22]

eprodrom: time to get started

=== Approval of Minutes From Last Week ===

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-15-minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-15-minutes]

&lt;eprodrom&gt; PROPOSED: accept minutes for 15 Sep 2015

&lt;tantek&gt; +1

eprodrom: any objections?

&lt;eprodrom&gt; RESOLVED: accept minutes for 15 Sep 2015

eprodrom: no objects, so lets mark that resolved

&lt;cwebber2&gt; +1 looks good

=== Charter Update ===

tantek: our charter was approved by AC and went to w3m to then look at results<br /> ... my understanding is that they have accepted it, but I don't know if there has been a public announcement<br /> ... can sandro or wendy speak to this?

&lt;AnnB&gt; (AC = Advisory Committee = the company reps to W3C)

sandro: the text has been updated and the announcement hasn't been made yet, but that announcement wouldn't go to anyone but the advisory commitee

&lt;sandro&gt; [http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter]

tantek: so the URL has been updated? can we paste in chat

&lt;tantek&gt; [http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html#licensing http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html#licensing]

&lt;Loqi&gt; Tantekelik made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-09-22]] [https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85705&oldid=85702 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85705&amp;oldid=85702]

tantek: if you reload that, you can see that it HAS changed from before<br /> ... my understanding that because this is updated, our charter update is updated even though there isn't an announcement

&lt;cwebber2&gt; \o/

&lt;cwebber2&gt; whoooooooooo

tantek: this means we can publicly talk about it, congrats everyone

&lt;cwebber2&gt; yay for freedom

tantek: we had no, no votes, I feel i can share that

eprodrom: I guess this means we have wrapped up the charter update, and its helpful for us to know that our charter is still valid<br /> ... anything else to discuss about the charter?<br /> ... lets move on to

&lt;tantek&gt; [https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-22#Social_Web_WG_F2F_Fall_2015 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-22#Social_Web_WG_F2F_Fall_2015]

=== F2F Doodle Poll ===

&lt;sandro&gt; [http://doodle.com/poll/sc29irgniqqseqtp#table http://doodle.com/poll/sc29irgniqqseqtp#table]

eprodrom: we have decided not to have our F2F meeting at TPAC so we are trying to decide next place and time

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [http://doodle.com/poll/sc29irgniqqseqtp http://doodle.com/poll/sc29irgniqqseqtp]

eprodrom: these meetings are super helpful and we would like to get another one as soon<br /> ... we have started a doodle poll for places and times for next F2F<br /> ... sandro, i believe this was just sent to chairs and staff

sandro: yes, these are times that worked for staff and chairs

&lt;tantek&gt; please answer [http://doodle.com/poll/sc29irgniqqseqtp http://doodle.com/poll/sc29irgniqqseqtp] ASAP!

eprodrom: we picked a number of locations, we are going to aim for san francisco, or boston for november<br /> ... please update with your ability this week<br /> ... we will be making a decision by next week<br /> ... any other questions about F2F?

&lt;sandro&gt; sooner if we get answers from everyone who'se been participating :)

eprodrom: the more answers we get, the better off we are

=== Activity Streams 2.0 ===

eprodrom: do we have james on the call today? looks like no

tantek: I'm going to give an update on the last thing i heard from james, after telcon last week we conversed on IRC, we had agreed to publish another draft of AS2 using the new software doc license<br /> ... gave an estimate of sept 24th or 25th, and since he is using new w3c system, he should be able to publish himself pretty quickly

&lt;Arnaud&gt; I confirm

tantek: but that is just my proxy of that conversation

sandro: he should be able to publish himself

eprodrom: without further intervention?

sandro: yes

eprodrom: he can do that at any time? not waiting for us?

tantek: we gave him auth last week

eprodrom: our intention is to do this monthly?

tantek: yes, that was our prev resolution

eprodrom: sounds like we are ready to go and its up to james on that<br /> ... anything else to discuss on that topic?<br /> ... we do have on the agenda to go to open issues, I'd like to come back<br /> ... to that<br /> ... any objects to pushing that to the end?<br /> ... with that i'd like to move on to social API

=== Social API ===

eprodrom: amy, are you on the phone?<br /> ... or aaaron?

aaronpk: I am here<br /> ... I was just talking with Amy about this, she wants to put together a schedule for us to make some progress on it in the next couple weeks<br /> ... but we have not had a chance to take a crack at it yet. but she is still on her way to moving over to the US

eprodrom: the idea is to put together a schedule for social API. I'm assuming looking ahead toward F2F meeting at the end of Nov<br /> ... that gives a good target for milestones

cwebber2: Amy and I talked abotu this as well, and one suggestion to move forward as the current progress is held back waiting on some implementation<br /> ... perhaps checking in with other groups to get someidea of progress<br /> ... as the different proposed social apis are being developed, we would consolidate against them as they are being developed and give regular updates

eprodrom: i believe we have some open issues around social API, but again, would like to move on first

=== Additional Agenda Items ===

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web/wiki/Implementation-Phases https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web/wiki/Implementation-Phases]

eprodrom: elf isn't here but he added an item that i think was to give a set of implementation phases for implementing the social web stack<br /> ... it looks like he has listed that, but since he's not here i'd like to postpone this until next week

&lt;melvster&gt; that implementation phases document looks great!

tantek: we did talk about this at last weeks telcon, and its a brainstorm that he has put forth and the feedback that i gave him is that its great to brainstorm publicly and let us know how that project management plan was working for his own implementation first

&lt;tantek&gt; [https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-15-minutes#Additional_Topics https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-15-minutes#Additional_Topics]

tantek: I think everyone else has their own step forward with their own implementations<br /> ... its recorded in last weeks minutes

eprodrom: i'm not sure why its on this agenda then

tantek: i was hoping it was for elf to give us an update on success at it

eprodrom: it seems like the idea is that its for implementers who are getting started<br /> ... I'm not going to copy it to next weeks agenda, but i'm going to ask elf-pavlik to add that to the agenda only if he has new information to report

tantek: he should add it to the agenda with info on what he has to report

eprodrom: anything more to discuss about this implementation issue?<br /> ... normally next we would move on to issues in the tracker

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-22#Tracking_of_Actions_and_Issues https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-22#Tracking_of_Actions_and_Issues]

eprodrom: as we look at the issues, i don't see anything that needs immediate attention of the group<br /> ... rather than digging through all open issues, is there anyone has something to bring up on the tracker or github<br /> ... now is the time to draw attention to important issues

=== New and Important Issues ===

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues]

tantek: I can provide at leat a minor update on 1 issue

&lt;tantek&gt; [http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/4 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/4]

tantek: I am making good progress on issue 4 and hope to have a working draft for the group by next telcon<br /> ... basically providing an algorithm for if you have this class you can imply this class

&lt;tantek&gt; working on an editor's draft of an algorithm for implicit typing

tantek: hopefully for consideration for publication

&lt;tantek&gt; to provide to WG by next telcon

&lt;tantek&gt; hoping WG to consider it for publication as a WD

eprodrom: we have activity streams open issues, and tracker issues

&lt;eprodrom&gt; cwebber2: [http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/42 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/42]

eprodrom: questions for cwebber2, you have an open issue with issue42 around dual licensing the Activity Streams spec

&lt;melvster&gt; Arnaud++

&lt;Loqi&gt; Arnaud has 25 karma

eprodrom: i haven't looked very closely at the license, can you address this. has the recent charter change fixed this?

&lt;eprodrom&gt; B-)

cwebber2: I think this resolves it but have not fully delved in yet<br /> ... if I remember correctly there is the needed text in there, and this can probably be closed

&lt;eprodrom&gt; &quot;Permission to copy, modify, and distribute this work, with or without modification, for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the following on ALL copies of the work or portions thereof, including modifications:&quot;

cwebber2: and i can reopen it if there is a problem

wseltzer: one of our goals in adopting the document liscence was precisely for this type of compatability like this<br /> ... its compatable with GPL, please use it and let me know if you have problems

cwebber2: I wrote this up before the charter change, so I think I am all set to close the issue

&lt;wseltzer&gt; [http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document]

tantek: I have great respect for wseltzer on these matters, I only want to bring up that I haven't had a chance to have Mozilla team to review this and in the past Mozilla lawyers have disagreed with W3C lawyers on this matter

&lt;AnnB&gt; gee, that's disappointing to hear

tantek: Mozilla lawyers have yet to fully review

wseltzer: this liscense says make a pointer to the text of the license and the FSF has previously said that the new license is GPL compatable, and I hope there will be no disagreement on this one

&lt;wseltzer&gt; [no, close the issue]

eprodrom: tantek, should we leave this open until with hear from Mozilla?

&lt;wseltzer&gt; [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses]

tantek: I'm not asking that it be left open, I just wanted to give it as an FYI

&lt;cwebber2&gt; thank you wseltzer :)

&lt;cwebber2&gt; I'm excited for the change!

tantek: if there is new information in the future I will update<br /> ... for Mozilla's purposes we need to be MPL compatible too, so I'm probably going to continue to publish CC0 so that Mozilla compatibility is fine<br /> ... it may be more work for me, but should not slow anyone else down

eprodrom: I'm comfortable closing this

&lt;tantek&gt; FYI more background on Mozilla standards license thoughts: [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Standards/license https://wiki.mozilla.org/Standards/license]

eprodrom: any other issues we have open that we should be dicussing?

&lt;AnnB&gt; I don't understand this .. I thought Mozilla voted for this new license

eprodrom: a little difficult when we don't have james and others on the call to dicuss those issues

&lt;AnnB&gt; there was tons of discussion about that license

&lt;tantek&gt; AnnB - we voted for changing from the previous worse license to this improved license.

&lt;tantek&gt; it's a big step forwards, but it's also not yet at the level of CC0

&lt;cwebber2&gt; well

&lt;tantek&gt; we voted for progress - doesn't mean we're done

&lt;eprodrom&gt; Any additional F2F discussion?

eprodrom: can we come back to focus our attention on anything else its on F2F

&lt;cwebber2&gt; CC0 alone might not be great given the reasons it got blocked from the OSI list

eprodrom: I think we have some candidates for hosting, anything else about these locations or times?

&lt;tantek&gt; cwebber2: AFAIK CC0 is also approved for software - not blocked

eprodrom: either of these times are pretty active travel times

&lt;cwebber2&gt; I say that as the person who fought for it to go on the FSF license list, marked as GPL compatible, and then submitted to the OSI

eprodrom: any other thoughts about F2F?

&lt;cwebber2&gt; and had that blow up in my face

&lt;cwebber2&gt; tantek: CC0 got withdrawn from OSI acceptance

eprodrom: any other topics that aren't currently on the agenda?

&lt;cwebber2&gt; spent a month of my life on it

&lt;wseltzer&gt; [this license says, take this work, and tell us that it's licensed this way. Is that so hard?]

&lt;cwebber2&gt; the reason being it explicitly reserves patent rights

&lt;eprodrom&gt; Open topics?

&lt;cwebber2&gt; which destroys an equitable estoppel defense

&lt;cwebber2&gt; on patent grants

sandro: If we do the F2F in SF, well in either case, do we want to at that event, do a more outreachy kind of thing

&lt;cwebber2&gt; tantek: sure, happy to share that info

&lt;cwebber2&gt; oh my call dropped

sandro: see if we can get others to participate who have not yet

&lt;cwebber2&gt; tantek: CC has looked into making a revision that would be more software friendly

&lt;cwebber2&gt; but I think it hasn't happened yet

sandro: if people know folks who are idiologically on board with this, but not currently participating if they would like to come join us for a few hours

eprodrom: would we set aside a section of our schedule for that outreach

&lt;cwebber2&gt; tantek: [https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000092.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000092.html] the thread

eprodrom: we do intend to go in to a lot of detail and it may be difficult to get new people involved if we are in the detail<br /> ... so setting aside a specific time<br /> ... I would recommend that either early on, or late in the event<br /> ... either as inspiration or being able to present some results<br /> ... once we have a date we could start doing that outreach

AnnB: I wonder if we could re-visit the time of this call<br /> ... I know some people who would like to be involved but this time does not work for them<br /> ... I know its really difficult to change the time, but just wanted to throw that out

eprodrom: I think that we do have these calls every week, perhaps we could do an alternate time once a month or every other week

&lt;sandro&gt; -1 to any complex timing

&lt;sandro&gt; +0 to doing another survey

eprodrom: I would be open to it

&lt;tantek&gt; agreed with sandro

&lt;hhalpin&gt; will check in with Venezia from Telecom Italia

sandro: in my experience anything more the alternate weeks, and people forget what week they are on and people get more scheduling conflicts<br /> ... i'm fine with us doing another survey

&lt;hhalpin&gt; I think it depends on if he's merely interested are actually planning on implementing but he could not due Tuesdays due to regularly scheduled conflict

sandro: why don't we wait until after the F2F poll perhaps ask those people to add to the poll for F2f

Arnaud: its better to ask for months out as of course everyone already has a schedule for next week

eprodrom: I like the idea of waiting until after F2F for changing our times<br /> ... any other topics?<br /> ... then lets all conclude, thank you

&lt;tantek&gt; ben_thatmustbeme++ for scribing!

&lt;Loqi&gt; ben_thatmustbeme has 112 karma