From W3C Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Photo of the W3C Social Web Working Group taken at Face to Face Meeting, 2015-12-01 at Mozilla SF.

Social Web Working Group Face-to-face meeting


At Mozilla, 2 Harrison St., San Francisco, CA 94105.

Please enter reception on the 1st floor (facing Embarcadero street) where you will get a badge and directions to the Mozilla Community Space where we will be meeting both days.



  1. Evan Prodromou
  2. Tantek (hosting @MozSF)
  3. Arnaud Le Hors
  4. Aaron Parecki
  5. Amy Guy
  6. Christopher Allan Webber
  7. Sandro Hawke (staying at Harbor Court Hotel)
  8. Kevin Marks
  9. James Snell
  10. wilkie
  11. Rob Sanderson (only Tuesday)
  12. Wendy Seltzer (only Wednesday)

Additional URLs for RSVPing for attendees's calendar tracking:

Remote Participation

  1. elf Pavlik
  2. Benjamin Roberts
  3. Sarven Capadisli (Maybe)
  4. René Peinl
  5. Jessica Tallon (day 2)

Remote participants should be on the IRC channel to get instructions for participating.


  1. Benjamin Goering (accepted by chairs 2015-11-24)
  2. <add your name here>


  1. Shane Hudson (no budget)
  2. Jessica Tallon (day 1)


Required Reading

If you are participating in the face-to-face, you must read the following documents before the face to face as they will be discussed in detail, and in the interest of time we will not be summarizing, and will go directly to discussing specific issues to move forward:

Working drafts

Editors drafts

Proposed Editors drafts


In addition to the below agenda times, we will have 15 minute mid-morning & mid-afternoon breaks that the chairs will call at a good stopping point (rather than being prescheduled).

December 1

  • 08:30-09:00 Breakfast, network setup, introductions
  • 09:00-13:00 Morning agenda items
    • Agenda updates
    • Social Syntax - chair: Arnaud
      • Taking Activity Streams 2.0 to Candidate Recommendation We should evaluate progress and uptake on AS 2.0 and determine if and how we'll be taking the standard to CR. We will discuss alternatives to taking the document to CR, such as making it a Note.
      • 11:00-12:00 Tackle AS2 issues - James
      • 12:00-13:00
      • AS2 testing framework present, feedback, architecturally what next - Evan
      • discuss JF2 serialization format as a simplified form of AS2 Benjamin Roberts (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • 13:00-14:00 Lunch
  • 14:00-18:00 Afternoon agenda items
    • Social API - chair: Evan
      • (1 hr max) discuss Amy's Social Web Protocols - Amy
      • (1 hr max) Liaison with Annotations WG - kevinmarks

Liaison with Annotations WG

At the W3C TPAC a year ago, Kevin Marks was deputised to liaise with Annotations group. However, IE status for him in annotations was declined.

      • (1 hr max) discuss proposed editor's draft: Micropub Aaron Parecki (talk)
      • Group Photo!
      • (1 hr max) discuss proposed editor's draft: ActivityPump - Chris Webber
  • 19:00 Working Group Dinner (Here in the same space!)

December 2

Proposed agenda items

Feel free to add any proposed agenda items here. The chairs will take them into consideration while building the agenda. Thanks! - Tantek Çelik (talk)

Proposed technical items

Proposed admin items

Clarify github workflow

Make sure that the equal access controls (admin or otherwise) are given to each WG member in GitHub. Some members in the WG have admin rights which have complete control over the discussions (what issue gets to stay open and close based on their own reasoning). The most recent occurrence of this issue is at where it was inappropriately closed and locked, i.e., 1) not given sufficient reason 2) not taking the precautions as mentioned here . Again, the issue was closed by an admin. Melvin Carvalho stressed the point on IRC that these actions were "heavy handed" and admins being "judge, jury and executioner". Again, each WG member should be treated equally.

--Sarven Capadisli (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Since this issue was proposed someone gave Melvin and Henry Story owners privileges.... Henry Story quit the WG, he shouldn't have ANY permissions. And who is messing with permissions without approval? -- Benjamin Roberts (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • My access was downgraded recently, and I'm wondering why. All I said was that we have some reasonable equal grounds to operate on. May I propose that all hands are off for changing the permissions on Github until this access assignment or whatever is resolved? That is, a process that's in place and that we can adhere to respectfully? Github comments speak for themselves and are documented in public. I suspect that what goes on W3C's Github is no different than what would go on W3C Issues. Can we just chill? :) --Sarven Capadisli (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I have not found this workflow to be a productive use of time. If it works for some, that's great. I've come to learn that this actually has no standing in the W3C process, other than an informal staging area, so I think governance is out of scope of WG admin. However the only item I would say *might* be worth of discussion is that it has "w3c" in the title, so that could be misleading. Perhaps remove that and it becomes just another tool, and this issue goes away. Melvin Carvalho (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Amy Guy (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC) : As noted (by harry) in Socialwg/2015-04-07-minutes, the w3c-social org is for in-progress/experimental work in the scope of the WG, and rec-track specs should be moved under the w3c github org (where they are necessarily all in one social repo, but other WGs are managing fine with this arrangement, so no reason we can't). Nonetheless, we can all use the w3c-social org to make progress if we can observe commonsense things like:
    • Not closing or reopening other people's issues without explicit (public) permission.
    • Cooperating in creating new individual issues if multiple crop up in a single thread, and staying on topic. If a new thought occurs to you whilst writing a reply... you are empowered to stop typing, and open a new issue instead.
    • Discussions are practically focussed, ideally implementation-driven, with the express goal of driving rather than halting progress (if you're interested in halting progress on a particular spec, the most civilised way to do this is to propose an alternative spec. If you're not interested in being civilised, your comments may not be well-received by others).
      • Owner privileges on the whole repo are given to chairs and staff contact(s).
      • Owner privileges are extended to editors for their specific repos.
      • All issues are closed by working group consensus only, as with Tracker issues.

Bring Chris Webber on as co-editor of ActivityPump?

Discussed OOB by Chris and Jessica. Are people okay with this?

Adjacent Events

December 2

- Homebrew Website Club SF @MozSF

December 3

Stay one more day for the IndieWebCamp hack day:

- IndieWebCampSF 2015 - also at Mozilla San Francisco