From W3C Wiki

Social Web Working Group Teleconference (08 Dec 2015)

See also: IRC log


aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, bengo, cwebber2, eprodrom, kevinmarks, rhiaro, tantek, tsyesika, wilkie
Ben Roberts


eprodrom: as it is 5 minutes after the hour, lets get started


agenda is linked in the topic

approval of minutes

<cwebber2> oops

<cwebber2> sorry, dialing in now

eprodrom: two sets of minutes to approve last telcon and F2F

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve minutes of Nov 24

<eprodrom> +1

<tantek> +1

<wilkie> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<tsyesika> +1

eprodrom: unless there is a minus 1 we will move on quickly

<rhiaro> +1


RESOLUTION: approve minutes of Nov 24

eprodrom: next order of business is minutes from F2F, these are significantly longer

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve minutes Dec 1

eprodrom: lets treat both days as a single proposal

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve minutes Dec 1 and

<rhiaro> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<cwebber2> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 191 karma

eprodrom: we have had some problems with F2F minutes before so bravo Amy

<eprodrom> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 192 karma

eprodrom: any objections?

<rhiaro> thanks to whoever bot-wrangled sufficiently to mean there were no problems with the minutes!

<tantek> +1

RESOLUTION: approve minutes Dec 1 and

eprodrom: barring any objections we'll mark this resolved

<wilkie> +1


<tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++ for the resolutions summary!

eprodrom: while we are on the subject of minutes, ben_thatmustbeme has taken the time to group resolutions from previous minutes

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 128 karma

eprodrom: if it possible i would love to see this kept up to date

<wilkie> ben_thatmustbeme++ this is great

eprodrom: moving on with admin tasks

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 129 karma

github procedure

eprodrom: one of the controversies going in to F2F is how github procedure works and if we were being fair and how that was documented


<KevinMarks_> me

eprodrom: at the F2F amy put together a basic set of procedures and we hammered on them
... we approved these at the F2F but wanted to bring them up since not everyone was at the F2F
... we have already resolved this as the law of the land for github, but wanted to bring it up in telcon
... any comments or questions on this?
... no, given that, lets move on

ActivityStreams 2.0

<tantek> we had resolved to publish a new WD ASAP at the f2f

eprodrom: james updated the editors draft, but did not publish a new WD
... would like to move toward CR in Jan
... there was some editorial issues around adding eprodrom as a co-editor

<rhiaro> I think there is a new WD?

<rhiaro> Looks updated

eprodrom: he is not on today so i am trying to fill in in my co-editor role

<rhiaro> Oops I mean

<tantek> rhiaro, I think James has to just pull the trigger because we already resolved to publish

eprodrom: we cleared up a lot of things at F2F, i don't think we have significant blocking issues right now

<rhiaro> Never mind

<KevinMarks_> that is updated, yes


eprodrom: the idea is to go to a new working draft in the next few days


<tantek> "RESOLUTION: publish a new WD of AS2 drafts as of / by Friday. " from

<KevinMarks_> so should move to

eprodrom: the hold up may be on my end

<eprodrom> ACTION eprodrom get w3cid to jasnell asap

<trackbot> Created ACTION-85 - Get w3cid to jasnell asap [on Evan Prodromou - due 2015-12-15].

tantek: can you take an action to get this fixed?

eprodrom: anything on the queue for AS2?

tantek: love the rapid progress

eprodrom: i think everyone does


social web protocols

<melvster> rhiaro: FYI: SoLiD is now called Solid

rhiaro: this morning i closed a bunch of issues that were opened at the F2F as they looked like there was concensus
... if anyone feels this is inadiquate please bring it up

<KevinMarks_> can you add links?

rhiaro: I added a section on relation between different documents
... i would like feedback on what people think about it
... ask for FPWD issues be posted on Github
... would like to ask if there are none to go to FPWD by next call

eprodrom: we'll put on agenda for next call to move this FPWD

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask didn't we ask for that last week to be done by this week?

eprodrom: assuming people will put in there FPWD blocking issues there before next call and hopefully close them

tantek: reviewing the minutes from F2F we made that same request for today already
... are you asking to extend?

rhiaro: yes, they were not posted until very recently, and feel it should have a week

<tantek> shall we re-resolve on that then?

tantek: thats reasonable, other editors should take note to do this as well


eprodrom: we are collecting issues on github?

<KevinMarks_> hm, do we need a profile type discovery like post type?

rhiaro: yes (gives link)

<tantek> PROPOSED: make any FPWD- issues on Social Protocols Comparison visible before next telecon 12/15

eprodrom: thank you

<KevinMarks_> "The subject of a profile document can be a person, persona, organisation, bot, location, … the type of the subject of the profile is not required."

<rhiaro> Social Web Protocols

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: make any FPWD- issues on Social Web Protocols visible before next telecon 12/15

eprodrom: lets update that for the correct name

<tantek> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<KevinMarks_> +1

eprodrom: we had a similar proposal at F2F, we are updating to push it another week


<aaronpk> +1

eprodrom: i think that makes sense since the minutes just came out

RESOLUTION: make any FPWD- issues on Social Web Protocols visible before next telecon 12/15

<cwebber2> +1

rhiaro: one last thing to add, i am going to be opening a bunch of issues i would like WG to review, its not just for me its that I don't know where to go with some of them
... if people could keep an eye on that

eprodrom: i just talked to myself with my microphone off :)


aaronpk: after the f2f all the issues that we discussed i have incorporated issues in to the doc and closed others
... there are some remaining issues i want to discuss on the call and close a batch of them
... I commented on each issue with the diff so you can see exactly what the differences are

<aaronpk> webmention issues that have been addressed: #22, #18, #17, #13, #12, #5

aaronpk: they are all linked in the agenda
... i would like to propose closing all those on the call here

eprodrom: i'm not quite sure what the proposal is, these have been closed?

aaronpk: they have been addressed, but not closed

eprodrom: i don't want to get rules-wordy about this, but by my understanding, unless there is some objection by the people in the thread or by the requester
... we don't need to address them

aaronpk: my understanding was the opposite, and i thought we all had to agree but i'm happy to close them proactively

<aaronpk> PROPOSED: close webmention issues #22, #18, #17, #13, #12, #5 as resolved either having incorporated feedback or rejected with justification

<rhiaro> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<aaronpk> +1

eprodrom: lets just do this really quickly and in the future we can be more efiicient


<tantek> +1

RESOLUTION: close webmention issues #22, #18, #17, #13, #12, #5 as resolved either having incorporated feedback or rejected with justification

eprodrom: i'm going to mark resolved

aaronpk: in the future i will be proactive about closing them unless there are explicit objections

<KevinMarks_> +1

eprodrom: as the editor its mostly up to you unless there are objections to your mechanism to close them

aaronpk: on issue #21 is in regards to the .well-known
... i feel there are good reasons for allowing and not allowing, we don't need to discuss on the call but did want to bring the attention to the group

tantek: do you think its a FPWD blocker?


aaronpk: it might be as it requires a change for the sender and that can be a significant change for the implementor

eprodrom: hostmeta uses the well-known
... that might be the most efficient way
... without setting up a whole new well-known endpoint

aaronpk: this looks like it adds even more work for senders

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note that in practice host-meta has also been broken by the big sites that have asked for this, e.g. Google

aaronpk: anyway, i'll add that to the thread and you can see why i don't have an obvious path to closing this right now

tantek: To be clear, you don't have to close all issues to go to FPWD
... or even have them all documented, though its nice to have
... regarding this in particular, i don't think its a FPWD
... maybe in the draft list it as an open issue
... historically this type of discovery has been requested by large companies who break their own host-meta by themselves for months at a time
... as an editor you should consider that no current implmentations have yet to use this
... and also that those requesting it often break it themselves
... I don't think we can do that on the call, but i wanted to bring that up, but it may require synchronous discussion

aaronpk: i like the plan of not having it as a FPWD blocker and just making sure to note it as an open issue

eprodrom: there are a lot of ways to go from a link relation to an endpoint
... that discovery process does get rather complicated as there are a lot of methods to do it

<bengo> not a FPWD blocker but IMO "one big company messed up one time" isn't a good reason to ignore the use case

eprodrom: it might not be necessary to actually specify them in webmention either

<KevinMarks_> it's more like "all big companies that supported it dropped it"

<tantek> bengo - hence worth keeping as an open issue

<bengo> yep

<bengo> cool with me

<tantek> - not ignoring

aaronpk: I also wanted to call for FPWD blockers to be added by next week
... same as the Social Web Protocols document

<wilkie> you just need to realize that to do practical interop you'll need to implement 3 or 4 different methods of discovery because everybody thinks every other method is dumb

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: make any FPWD- issues on Webmention visible before next telecon 12/15

<aaronpk> wilkie++

<Loqi> wilkie has 25 karma

<tantek> +1

<aaronpk> +1


<eprodrom> +1

<KevinMarks_> +1

<wilkie> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<KevinMarks_> wilkie: or makes up their own

<tantek> wilkie, or we pick the most common subset (HTTP LINK header and HTML a/link rels) and go with that

RESOLUTION: make any FPWD- issues on Webmention visible before next telecon 12/15

Post Type Discovery

tantek: I feel like PTD is a very constrained spec, there are only a few issues
... I don't need to discuss any specific issues
... I too would like to request anyone with FPWD blockers to make them visible by next week
... and also to request people to continue to just raise issues and look at the doc, I do appreciate those that have thus far

eprodrom: that makes sense

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: make any FPWD- issues on Post Type Discovery visible before next telecon 12/15


<eprodrom> +1

eprodrom: this does mean that we have 3 documents to review before next telcon but that may get us working more

<aaronpk> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<KevinMarks_> +1

tantek: and with any luck we'll have 3 documents to bring to FPWD next week, which will be a great note to end the year on

<tsyesika> +1

RESOLUTION: make any FPWD- issues on Post Type Discovery visible before next telecon 12/15

<rhiaro> bengo's use case for .well-known seems pretty solid. If this discovery mechanism is the only way bigger/media/cms-constrained orgs can even implement webmention, I think we should avoid excluding them.. otherwise we go from 'probably will not implement / will screw it up' to 'definitely will not implement' and lose out a whole bunch. Particularly as these are orgs who are likely to benefit from federation, as it is optimising for their customers and probably

<rhiaro> isn't damaging their business interests.

tracker actions

eprodrom: there are no raised issues right now
... we have no issues pending review either
... only pending review actions

<tantek> rhiaro I don't see the evidence for "is the only way bigger/media/cms-constrained orgs can even implement webmention" - such claims were made in the past about webfinger etc. and either have shown to not be true, or even if they do implement it that way, it's fragile and fails anyway.

eprodrom: a lot of these are on you tantek from a few days ago, do you want to take a look at these?

<rhiaro> tantek: based that comment from what bengo said, he's the one with experience with these orgs

<aaronpk> it looks like a lot of those are about adding things to the f2f agenda so they are done by default now

<rhiaro> Can we close ACTION 74 and 75?

tantek: yes I claim i did all these

<tantek> actions 76-79

<tantek> in particular

eprodrom: can you close those actions please

<tantek> close action 76

<tantek> close action-76

<trackbot> Closed action-76.

<tantek> close action-77

<trackbot> Closed action-77.

<tantek> close action-78

<trackbot> Closed action-78.

eprodrom: amy you had a question about 74 and 75

<tantek> close action-79

<trackbot> Closed action-79.

eprodrom: aaronpk and rhiaro are those complete?

rhiaro: I added a section to the SWP document that i think completes it, so long as everyone is happy with that

eprodrom: any other questions?

aaronpk: the webmention page has been updated, so that is done as well

<aaronpk> close action-81

<trackbot> Closed action-81.

eprodrom: i love closing issues

<KevinMarks_> did evan just hang up?

<cwebber2> it sounds like it

<cwebber2> eprodrom: ping

<eprodrom> Augh

<wilkie> i think so

<eprodrom> I was giving a really good speech too

eprodrom: we are now at 45 minutes, i think we have done pretty well here.... (evan's phone dies)

<wilkie> tantek: can't pick a subset. others don't agree wrt interop.

eprodrom: alright, back in the game

<wilkie> tantek: i enjoy your boundless optimism though :)

eprodrom: we are at 45 minutes, i'm happy to give the rest of the 13 minutes back
... however if anyone has any issues we should discuss
... in particular i'd like to ask in cwebber2 has an update on activitypump

<tantek> wilkie - in practice no one does "only" host-meta, thus picking a subset of HTTP LINK and HTML rel can work in practice.

cwebber2: this weekend was kind of crazy for me, but i plan to spend this week closing as many issues as i can, i hope i will have things to report by next call

<tantek> wilkie - happy to be disproven with documented examples of real-world host-meta *only* implementations.

eprodrom: i don't know that we are at the FPWD request yet for this or micropub

<aaronpk> do we have a call on 12/22?

<KevinMarks_> progress on jf2?

it may be that we don't get much more work done on these in the next few weeks

eprodrom: i believe we do have calls scheduled for 12/22 and 12/29
... we have cancelled those last year
... do we want to cancel one or both of those calls?
... specifically for tantek...
... actually i and the other chairs will talk about that
... and we will discuss next week

<tantek> ok by me

<tantek> mostly I want to give the opportunity for cwebber2 and aaronpk to ask for FPWD on ActivityPump and Micropub

<tantek> so for me it is up to their preference

<tantek> to 1) call for FPWD- issues by a certain date, and then 2) ask for resolution to publish FPWD by a later date after that

<wilkie> tantek: host-meta is prioritized in my code. i'm not even sure how to get certain endpoints (dialback, salmon) on just page links or headers. i don't think I do.

<tantek> wilkie - good to know - is that in rstatus or ?

ben_thatmustbeme: do we want make it a workflow that scribe should move resolutions to the /resolutions page in the future?

eprodrom: yes sure, can you do that for F2F and this week

ben_thatmustbeme: sure

<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approve minutes of Nov 24
  2. approve minutes Dec 1 and
  3. make any FPWD- issues on Social Web Protocols visible before next telecon 12/15
  4. close webmention issues #22, #18, #17, #13, #12, #5 as resolved either having incorporated feedback or rejected with justification
  5. make any FPWD- issues on Webmention visible before next telecon 12/15
  6. make any FPWD- issues on Post Type Discovery visible before next telecon 12/15

[End of minutes]