24 Nov 2015
See also: IRC log
- Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, cwebber2
- Rob_Sanderson, azaroth
- Summary of Action Items
- Summary of Resolutions
<tantek> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 24 November 2015
<ben_thatmustbeme> there are only 5 people dialed in
<scribe> ScribeNick: azaroth
<scribe> Scribe: Rob_Sanderson
<Loqi> azaroth has 1 karma
<tantek> scribe: azaroth
<cwebber2> whoops, calling in!
Tantek: Approval of minutes. Last week's called cancelled, so the week before.
... Next on the agenda, next week we'll be meeting face to face in San Francisco
scribe: Dec 1,2 at Mozilla San Francisco
... Enter on the first floor and will get a badge and directions
... Calling out the required reading section. Everyone who's participating is expected to read it
... We'll discuss those docs directly, and will not summarize them
<cwebber2> I just got in
scribe: If there's anything you want to resolve / approve / etc, then please read them first
... We'll be linking them up soon
... (Or anyone else can too)
... Will try to be on IRC, but of course have Thanksgiving Thursday/Friday
... So those two days probably not, so any questions please send them in sooner rather than later
<wilkie> I am flying Thanksgiving night to SF. thank goodness for cheap flights.
Technical items for discussion
<cwebber2> thanks aaronpk
Tantek: James sent his regrets, so propose we defer discussion of AS items until the F2F
... If there's specific items that people here think they can make progress on without James, please say?
... Any items we can move forward on?
... tumbleweed ...
Tantek: Silence as acceptance to defer
<melvster> was there anything in the queue from last time?
Tantek: Please Q+ anything that comes up. Most were in the queue from last time.
<tantek> Federation protocol: Webmention ready as editor's draft
Tantek: Next area ... aaronpk has added WebMention.
aaronpk: We've talked about WebMention in the past. A few of us have been working on cleaning it up to share with the group
... We have a draft that should be sufficient as an ED for the group
aaronpk: Nothing new from the specification side, but the document is new
... A start towards the federation protocol
... It's not tied to microformats, though most implementations use them at the moment
... should be applicable to other types of documents as well
... Any questions?
Tantek: Thanks for getting this into ED state, really appreciate that.
... Lots of time spent on AS as the most mature doc we had coming in. WebMention explicitly mentioned as input in the charter, so good to make progress in multiple areas
... We can just go ahead and accept it as ED, but a spearate step to publish as FPWD
<cwebber2> ... (should we be submitting activitypump to editor's draft status?)
Tantek: Want to ask those on the call if there's objections? Or questions?
<melvster> webmention is stated as a *possible* input as is linked data platform
azaroth: Where to send feedback on the doc? github issues?
aaronpk: Thinking about it :) I like using github for questions, nice threaded view. Will get back to you on that
Tantek: Looking at the header at the top, I see a wiki for open issues.
... I share the question, and that gh issues could be considered
<ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk, i'd agree, that github usually works well
Tantek: I created an issues only gh for post-type discovery draft, that could be something to consider
aaronpk: Should I make it in the socialWG account?
tantek: Yes, that seems the best
tantek: As an example ^^ the post type discovery spec
aaronpk: I'd be happy to do that
azaroth: No problem :)
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask How soon can Webmention editor's draft be ready for FPWD?
tantek: Looks fairly spec like, what do you need to be ready for FPWD? What are you blocked on, or is it ready?
aaronpk: From my perspective it's functional enough to push forwards, however I'd love to get feedback
... Make sure it's clear enough from an implementation perspective
... Also just more technical clean up to move things around, but mostly just removing / reorienting text
<ben_thatmustbeme> would that be after accepting as editor's draft though?
tantek: Would like to add to required reading
<cwebber2> no objections, but
tantek: it looks like it's been through a lot of iterations, we can approve at the f2f
<bengo> +1 to required reading
<wilkie> that sounds good to read it for the f2f
cwebber2: No objections, wondering whether it makes sense to do the same for activity pump?
tantek: To be clear, which area of the charter do you think activity pump comes in?
cwebber2: Under social api and federation api
tantek: I think that's something we should add. I see no problem adding. Did you have something ready?
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-12-01 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86893&oldid=86892
tantek: a separate topic
tantek: Adding to agenda.
<cwebber2> I did mean to queue it for the next topic but wasn't sure how to do that
<cwebber2> in this queue
<cwebber2> ++ to webmention
tantek: Did you have a question about webmention?
... No other questions, move on to next item.
<melvster> I dont like the idea of source and target variables flying around without namespaces ... id look at semantic pingback : http://www.w3.org/wiki/Pingback#Semantic_Pingback
<melvster> in general I see this as a non starter
<tantek> Social API: Micropub for consideration as editor's draft (Aaron)
Social API - micropub
tantek: Another one for aaronpk
<kevinmarks> melvster: it's a defined endpoint; it doesn't need namespaces
<aaronpk> (please save the arguments about webmention for later, that's not the topic of the call)
tantek: Noting that micropub wasn't in the initial list of docs when we started the WG, so a bit different context, but provide details for why it should be considered
aaronpk: Going through a lot of iterations based on feedback from the group
... It's not as mature as webmention, so not ready as ED. Proposal is to consider it as such, knowing that we'll continue to work on it and it'll evolve much more than webmention
aaronpk: Link ^^
... The text needs work, lots of cleanup needed before anyone should read through it
aaronpk: I'll send a note when it's ready to look at
... any questions about it?
tantek: What is the specific proposal?
... Want it considered as ED for the group?
aaronpk: That's correct
... I think it fulfils the API part of the charter as a self contained building block
... goes along side webmention but not coupled to any particular aspects
<tantek> PROPOSED: Accept Micropub as an editor's draft for the Social Web WG as part of the Social API section of the charter
Arnaud: I'm a bit confused. I don't see how the document compares to what Amy has been putting together?
<tantek> +1 to Arnaud's question
aaronpk: This is mostly just existing micropub, but goal is to reconcile with what Amy has been doing
... to make it work with what we've been working with collectively
Arnaud: But if it was a rec, we wouldn't need Amy's document?
<bengo> bigbluehat I think https://w3c-social.github.io/SocialAPI/socialapi
aaronpk: Can we combine them into the same proposal?
<bigbluehat> bengo: thanks!
aaronpk: Amy is here?
tantek: We had that doc accepted as ED from Amy
<rhiaro_> Mine is an outline with potential spaces for the pieces. Happy to see it dissolve if other modular things can take its place
rhiaro_: What I wrote was an outline of the different pieces
... would like to see them replaced by individual specs
... if there's anything left, then we can spec those later
<wilkie> I was assuming amy's document should supersede any other federation api document
<kevinmarks> Amy's doc refences micropub already
rhiaro_: So if the doc disappeared to be replaced, that would be fine
<kevinmarks> Creating content
Sandro: Which piece of your doc does this replace?
Amy: Creating content
sandro: so long as it's one section, that makes sense
<bengo> azaroth If SocialAPI is editor's draft, should it be listed here? https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Drafts If so, are any other ED missing?
rhiaro_: micropub is creating content, webmention is mentioning
tantek: Amy's doc on the required reading list
... also an ED for the WG. My preference would be to see both docs move forwards. Premature to say one could replace the other
... Trust that the editors of the docs will work together to explain the relationships
... an action on both?
... That something that rhiaro_ and aaronpk can take on?
Both: Yes happy to do that
tantek: Lets make an action then
<kevinmarks> Amy's draft already does mention it
<rhiaro_> melvster: since semantic pingback defines source and target, you could default to that namespace if you wanted to namespace received webmentions yourself
ACTION rhiaro_ to explain relationship to aaronpk's document
<trackbot> Error finding 'rhiaro_'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/users>.
ACTION rhiaro to explain relationship to aaronpk's document
<trackbot> Created ACTION-74 - Explain relationship to aaronpk's document [on Amy Guy - due 2015-12-01].
ACTION aaronpk to explain relationship to rhiaro's document
<trackbot> Created ACTION-75 - Explain relationship to rhiaro's document [on Aaron Parecki - due 2015-12-01].
<tantek> PROPOSED: Accept Micropub as an editor's draft for the Social Web WG as part of the Social API section of the charter
tantek: Not seeing any questions ....
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-11-24 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86894&oldid=86881
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-12-01 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86895&oldid=86893
Arnaud: I think it's premature before we understand how they relate
... I'd like the decision to be deferred
tantek: I think Amy and aaronpk answered that?
aaronpk: We accepted we'd clarify, but it hasn't yet been clarified
Arnaud: Exactly :)
<kevinmarks> it's already clear in Amy's draft, just needs backref in micropub
tantek: Your preference is to wait for that
<bigbluehat> +1 to clarity
<melvster> +1 clarify
tantek: aaronpk are you okay with that?
+1 to clarify first
<wilkie> I agree with that
rhiaro: A process question, can someone point me to ED definition?
<cwebber2> yes please re: editor's draft
rhiaro: not even a commitment to publishing
tantek: Your understanding is correct
<cwebber2> okay, if that's true, then I think activitypump is ready for editor's draft
tantek: a new doc that has not been mentioned in the charter, so we need to explicitly accept it or not
... my understanding from Arnaud is that before deciding he would need to know the relationship. I think that's a reasonable request
<bengo> rhiaro "Working Groups and Interest Groups may make available "Editor's drafts". Editor's drafts have no official standing whatsoever, and do not necessarily imply consensus of a Working Group or Interest Group, nor are their contents endorsed in any way by W3C." http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/
tantek: so no argument regarding next steps
<rhiaro_> thanks bengo
Arnaud: For the record, I don't vote in WGs that I chair, so feel free to ignore if you want. I'd answer Amy's question a little differently, when we accept it as ED it's the first step on putting it in REC track
... no guarantee that any document gets there, but it's an important first step
sandro: I think it makes sense for aaron to write a proposal in the syntax and style of a draft for what could go in creating content section
... if the WG accepts the proposal, then that could go in to be a spec, but we haven't started looking at it at all
... labeling it as ED would communicate that we had decided to go in that direction
... so better to call it a proposal
... no decision here, just communication issues
tantek: I didn't hear from aaron or anyone an assertion of direction. Can raise for the WG?
<rhiaro_> Good to maintain a coherant front as a WG :)
sandro: Could be okay with ED if it's clearly labeled as not necessarily the direction of WG
arnaud: what gain?
tantek: WG is working on it
... I think the direction concern is valid
sandro: Important part is feedback from the group that we would like a solid proposal
<bengo> Might as well wait until after F2F to dub new EDs
sandro: no pun intended :)
<aaronpk> sandro: "It's good to have the activity pumping away at making a solid micropub proposal" #PUNINTENDED
<Loqi> micropun has 1 karma
<rhiaro_> "I think it's good to have the activity pumping away to have a solid micropub spec"
tantek: Aaron you have a request for next steps. Arnaud's request reasonable. Clarity of direction from Sandro
<rhiaro_> For the record.
aaronpk: Should I label the page as a proposal?
tantek: Its your draft, so long as you don't claim it from the WG.
aaronpk: Can we clarify sandro's request?
tantek: that the draft explicitly state it's not implying a direction, it's one approach but not claiming a specific direction
sandro: So long as it doesn't go on WG list of EDs
tantek: But to get it on the list, it shouldn't imply direction
Arnaud: On the wiki page, we should have a section for proposals, not items the WG is working on
tantek: We have a list of things the group is working on
<Loqi> arnaud has 28 karma
<sandro> +1 put it on a list of proposals, not as a list of drafts
tantek: will add that section to the home page
+1 to list of proposals
<melvster> +1 list of proposals
Tantek: By that request, you're saying we should list micropub as a proposal
Arnaud: I think that's reasonable to do
... that seems the case, there's a proposal that we can acknowledge
tantek: Okay, great.
ACTION tantek to add proposal section to social web WG page, with micropub as first entry
<trackbot> Created ACTION-76 - Add proposal section to social web wg page, with micropub as first entry [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-12-01].
Tantek: Can you put the URL? micropub.net?
... Thank you
... No one on the queue ... any other questions?
<melvster> please could additions to proposals list also be announced publicly?
Tantek: We agreed to list as a proposal. Aaron, do you intend to discuss at the F2F?
aaronpk: That'd be great if we have time for that
tantek: Objections to adding micropub to required readings?
sandro: How long to read?
<cwebber2> everyone should be reading these specs anay
aaronpk: I don't know 15 minutes? The syntax part is the important part
sandro: Can we say that on the reading list?
<wilkie> yeah, it should be expected to read these possible apis
<kevinmarks> can we read AS2 in 15 minutes?
tantek: Other questions?
<melvster> -1 there's dozens of specs to read
ACTION tantek to add micropub to required reading list
<melvster> add to proposals, not required reading
<trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Add micropub to required reading list [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-12-01].
<cwebber2> I think most of the problems in the group comes from people objecting to things without actually having read the spec they're objecting to
<cwebber2> +1 to reading :P
<bengo> +1 to reading
<melvster> add to proposals not required reading, announce publically
<Arnaud> I find this document (micropub) confusing
<kevinmarks> the reason micropub is so long is that it has a list of implemntations in it
<Arnaud> the structure isn't obvious
tantek: No other questions, moving on
<bigbluehat> aaronpk: kevinmarks: maybe the list of implementations could be moved to an appendix?
Activity Pump for consideration at F2F
<tantek> Activity Pump for consideration at F2f (cwebber)
<aaronpk> yes, i still have lots of cleanup on the micropub one. webmention was in better shape :)
<Arnaud> aaronpk, I think some section numbers would go a long way
cwebber: Didn't mean to interupt earlier. Would like people to read the Acitivty Pump spec for the F2F
<aaronpk> Arnaud, any examples of specs with section numbers in that format?
cwebber: some areas that could do with review, but areas that we haven't come to consensus on
... Structure is pretty well understood
... Prior version has multiple implementations, could fulfil social and federation APIs
<Arnaud> respec would take care of that for you automatically
<rhiaro_> The prior version being pump.io?
<kevinmarks> the wiki version has a toc and numbers http://indiewebcamp.com/micropub
cwebber: So would like consideration towards both of those areas
... Amy has been helping to reshape the docs to make them clearer
... As is, I think it's readable enough for the F2F
<kevinmarks> so that is easier to read that the moment, arnaud
tantek: Link please?
sandro: How long?
cwebber: I don;t think it'll take that long. 15-20 minutes probably?
<rhiaro_> It doesn't take logn to read, but it took me a couple of days of concentrating to really understand it
<kevinmarks> if you start here http://indiewebcamp.com/micropub#Methodology
tantek: Thank you Chris. Proposal is to discuss at F2F. And thus add to required reading.
cwebber2: Yes adding to required. Would like to have it move forwards in the same way as micropub etc
tantek: Not one of the documents in the charter, so would take the same route. Need to agree as a group to take it on as ED as the next step, after people have read and discussed
... soonest would be at teh F2F.
cwebber2: That sounds good
tantek: WebMention is a bit different, as it's in the charter
... F2F can hopefully discuss whether to publish as FPWD
<melvster> no, webmention is mentioned as a *possible input* in the charter nothing more
tantek: Propose to accept Pump as required reading?
<cwebber2> +1 unsurprisingly :)
<sandro> +1 assuming 20 minutes
<tsyesika> +1 (also unsuprisingly)
<Arnaud> kevinmarks, thanks
ACTION tantek to add Activity Pump to the list of required reading for F2F
<trackbot> Created ACTION-78 - Add activity pump to the list of required reading for f2f [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-12-01].
<Arnaud> (ref micropub wiki)
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86896&oldid=86858
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 2 edits to Socialwg/2015-12-01 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86899&oldid=86897
<Loqi> Kmarks2 made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-12-01 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86897&oldid=86895
<cwebber2> yeah I think that's right
tantek: Should add it to the proposals section too
ACTION tantek to add activity pump to proposals section of the home page
<trackbot> Created ACTION-79 - Add activity pump to proposals section of the home page [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-12-01].
<sandro> sorry, have to step away. see you all in SF
tantek: Okay, that brings us to open issues catch all section
... Looking at the tracker ... separation of concerns issue?
<tantek> issue 45
<trackbot> issue-46 -- AS2.0 tries to address some Social API responsibilities -- raised
tantek: Raised by Elf, are you on the call?
... Not on the call, so moving on.
<trackbot> issue-40 -- Deprecate the "Post" activity -- pending review
tantek: Next is pending review, #40
... Item we think is completed. WG to accept that it has been completed. Raised by james
... Don't think he needs to be here
... Already resolved it. Any objections to closing?
<cwebber2> no objections
<cwebber2> was verifying
<tantek> trackbot, close issue-40
tantek: Closing. Pending review actions, we have none. So end of the tracking issues section.
Tantek: Next telco is the 8th, with Arnaud as the chair
... Next meeting is next week, the F2F.
... Everyone remember to do your required reading, which we added a bunch of things to
... See you all next week
<wilkie> cool. thanks!
<tantek> trackbot, end meeting