Social Web Working Group Teleconference

12 Jan 2016

Attendees

Present: aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, eprodrom, sandro, Rob_Sanderson, jasnell, wilkie, Arnaud, rhiaro, cwebber2, tsyesika, jaywink, tantek
Regrets
Chair: SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe: sandro, cwebber2_remote

Frank: Happy to be here, I consider this super important, to bring real standards to this space
... I've been doing open source for ~20 years, board member of KDE project, and most well known as founder and leader of ownCloud
... it's free software alternative to things like gdrive, icloud, etc. FRee and open source, with federation
... original vision was sharing files, but now we do more in the social area. with ownCloud9 we'll have comments, etc, around shared files. Blurring the line between cloud storage and social networks
... we really want to do this in an open, standard, right way!
... hopefully we can help with making test implementations, etc

eprodrom: Thank you, welcome

webmention draft

aaronpk: It was published!

<aaronpk> https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/

eprodrom: Any changes in this version

aaronpk: no, you can look at gh commits, but really just formatting and references

eprodrom: issues continue to be tracked on github

<rhiaro> https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/

<wilkie> yay

<Loqi> :D

<rhiaro> No new updates

sandro: social-web-protocols was also published at the same time

eprodrom: great!

aaronpk: There are some issues -- it would be good to keep talking about them on github

<azaroth> I'll add it to the Annotation WG agenda for tomorrow

sandro: This is a great time to tell folks about it, if you can think of anyone who should know

<ben_thatmustbeme> might be good to try to inform projects like wordpress, etc things

sandro: Sometimes it makes sense to really push the word out

+1 ben_thatmustbeme

ben_thatmustbeme, can you do that?

ActivityPump

<ben_thatmustbeme> i'll try to reach out to them

tsyesika: Expecting a vote today on whether ap would go to FPWD

<cwebber2_remote> we thought today was where we approved the standards for fpwd

<ben_thatmustbeme> there is already a plugin for it, but its certainly a different thing to get them looking at it directly

<cwebber2_remote> not publish

<cwebber2_remote> :X

<eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-15-minutes <-

<eprodrom> Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump and micropub by 12 Jan 2016

eprodrom: My fault for not putting this on the agenda, but yes, we agreed on this

tsyesika: I think we're ready to go ahead, yes

https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypump

<ben_thatmustbeme> http://w3c-social.github.io/activitypump/

<cwebber2_remote> my phone keeps dropping off :

<cwebber2_remote> AUGH

<cwebber2_remote> phone dropped again

<cwebber2_remote> I'll say it here.

<cwebber2_remote> I think we're ready for FPWD. I was under the impression that we were voting today on both AP and micropub

<cwebber2_remote> apparently I was wrong

<cwebber2_remote> so we were supposed to publish by today?

eprodrom: I don't think you were wrong, they just didn't make it to the agenda

<cwebber2_remote> if that's true, I think we should publish, I was under the impression we scheduled things so that AP and micropub would be published at the same time

<cwebber2_remote> and the vote would happen today

<cwebber2_remote> hence my confusion things are up already

<cwebber2_remote> so does there need to be a vote even? we can do one

<cwebber2_remote> or should we just move on to process?

<cwebber2_remote> and get it published and up?

sandro: I no longer see a need to publish these at the same time, since there's no front-page news, etc

<cwebber2_remote> ok

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Publish FPWD of ActivityPump

+1

<cwebber2_remote> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<tsyesika> +1

<jaywink> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<wilkie> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<azaroth> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish FPWD of ActivityPump

w3.org/TR/activtypump

w3.org/TR/activitypump

<eprodrom> activity api

sandro: this is a good time to settle the name, but it doesn't have to be final really

<cwebber2_remote> I think activitypump is fine personally...

<rhiaro> activitypub!

eprodrom: as the person who introduced the term "pump", I kind of lean toward something more like "activity api"

<cwebber2_remote> I don't have another name really ready

<cwebber2_remote> rhiaro: haha!

<aaronpk> lol

eprodrom: I'm fine with activitypump

micropub fpwd

aaronpk: I haven't cleaned it up yet, so I'd like to not vote this week, but I'll try for next week

<eprodrom> rhiaro: I like it

AS2 Exit Criteria

<cwebber2_remote> rhiaro: activitypub would be fine by me

<cwebber2_remote> I can scribe

<ben_thatmustbeme> i can

<cwebber2_remote> assuming my phone doesn't cut out

<eprodrom> scribe: cwebber2_remote

<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: cwebber2_remote

sandro: procedurally when we go to CR we need to spell out for the director and the public what's our exit criteria

and the procedure is usually 2 interoperable implementaitons

<aaronpk> (i'm +1 on ActivityPub as well but don't have a strong opinion either way)

<sandro> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/AS2_CR#Exit_Criteria

sandro: we could go for a more strict version, 2 real versions
... people suggested I write that down so I did
... there are two proposals on this page, that 2 activitystreams must be used by at least 2 systems

<azaroth> (Can we go back to the name after current discussion? +1 on ActivityPub as well)

sandro: so tantek especially asked can we have a stricter verison
... the stricter version is have 2 versions with produced and consumed by qualified implementations, and we have to have a report by a developer, they have to make it available so we can see that it does what it does
... and they have to have a reason for that feaure
... I was thinking this way in response to the criticism that some people will look at this work and say "nobody is using this" and this gives us for solid proof to show it's used
... that's me laying out the space, I don't have a strong opionion
... for example, paging is one feature, so at some point someone has to cluster what the features are
... what granularity?

jasnell: I can't queue up on irc so I'll queue up here

Arnaud: I appreciat ethe intent but I think it's going too far
... I've never seen this requirement before
... and it prevents someone from doing an implementation in a product they can't show you

<sandro> Arnaud: (this requirement to have access)

Arnaud: it's great if someone can give you access, and maybe we should ask that, and if so it's great, b ut not sure it should be a must

<azaroth> +1 to Arnaud

Arnaud: as for features, the burden you're putting on people may disincentivize people adding them
... it seemas backward, we preusmably put things in the spec because we must have a reason to do it
... it seems odd to me

sandro: the quick answer, i think there's a space between we thought it would be useful and it actualy is useful

Arnaud: maybe there's a middle ground we can find there, indicate which things you found useful, without people documenting why they use it

<azaroth> (Arnaud covered my point very well already)

eprodrom: I do want to move us along, so I guess azaroth next? oh okay

<Arnaud> yw :)

eprodrom: do you want to reiterate here?

azaroth: really just to +1 Arnaud, having people write the documentation for use cases, considering the extent of the spec, would be very time consuming
... even just "please write an email and say what and why you're using" would be sufficient to capture the intent

<sandro> azaroth: It would be a big barrier to force people to describe all their motivations. No need to get all processy. Just ask for an email about what they're using

jasnell: one thing we chose not to do at the beginning was to document those things, now we're doing a reverse process figuring out use cases, but I think at this point it might be worth documenting what the key use cases are
... I can take a first stab at giving a formal list on core use cases based on current spec
... and we can go from there

eprodrom: that sounds reasonable, I think that the motivation here is to show widespread use of those use cases
... I think we have the use cases from first principles that shows they're worth having

<eprodrom> argh, lost my connection

sandro: so I haven't heard anyone say no to the high bar, so I suggest maybe what we do is have the exit criteria be the minimum one (every feature of AS2 used) but then we show what every feature is used in implementation
... maybe we talk a bit and try to find out what has more data
... in light of those implmentations
... so I'll say, james, does what I'm saying make sense, would you be interested in updating your future use cases documentation with things to be implemented(?)

eprodrom: yep hi I'm sorry

jasnell: I'm driving on mute (???)

sandro: if you're interested and see the value in gathering the use cases, should we do an implementation report
... see what use cases we think they're doing
... because I think we need to have an implementation report
... so if we can make use cases and get the implementation report... does that make sense and sound compelling?

jasnell: yeah, I'm chalenging how we reconcile that because I'm not sure what list we have of what we're reconciling against

sandro: so I'm suggesting we go with the minimum version, and we have the second part to do our own good effort

eprodrom: that makes a lot of sense
... and makes our process a lot more defensible
... there were some parts of this that were a little bit more controvercial, as in terms of things that are accessible vs private vs commercial not-easy-to-access
... but I guess we'll deal with that on a case-by-case basis?

sandro: yes we'll report based on what we can learn from them

eprodrom: yes as a decision making point, can we deal with this as a proposal to use the exit criteria as defined in proposal 1?

<aaronpk> define "system"?

sandro: yes I'll define it

<sandro> PROPOSED: Our CR-Exit for AS2 will be: Each feature of AS2 must be used by at least two systems

<sandro> PROPOSED: Our CR-Exit for AS2 will be: Each feature of AS2 must be used by at least two independent implementations

<sandro> +1

<tsyesika> +1

+1

<aaronpk> +1

<jaywink> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<azaroth> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<wilkie> +1

RESOLUTION: Our CR-Exit for AS2 will be: Each feature of AS2 must be used by at least two independent implementations

<sandro> sandro: next on AS2 is test suite / validator stuff, probably

Action Items

<sandro> eprodrom: I got some action items done, ACTION-80 and ACTION-85

<Zakim> aaronpk, you wanted to discuss later to drop a link to the Doodle poll for the June meeting

<sandro> action-84?

<trackbot> action-84 -- Sandro Hawke to Bring issue to i18n -- due 2015-12-09 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/84

<sandro> not clear, will figure out.

AOB

<azaroth> +1 to ActivityPub

and my phone droped again

<azaroth> I'm convinced by Amy's rationale :)

but I'll say +1 activitypub :)

I think it's fine

<tsyesika> I am for it too

<tsyesika> :)

<rhiaro> \o/

<tsyesika> if that matters :P

I like both activitypub and activitypump

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: change name of ActivityPump to ActivityPub

today is not a good day for me to be on this call :)

phones hate me

<azaroth> +1

<tsyesika> +1

+1

<rhiaro> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<tantek> +0

<wilkie> +0

<aaronpk> +0

<ben_thatmustbeme> +0

<sandro> -0 (I like the pump metaphor)

<jaywink> +0 (fine with both - though pub's have good beer!)

<sandro> tantek: Why change name at last minute?

<sandro> eprodrom: It's just it's caried from pump.io without being that related

Note: I'm also +1 on activitypump :)

I always liked activitypump, but rhiaro makes a good case

and eprodrom doesn't seem excited about the name

<sandro> sandro: I was asking if we wanted a hyphen!

one question is, does aaronpk feel like it dilutes "micropub" as a name?

<sandro> tantek: so you're saying "pump" isn't warranted since it's that like "pump.io"

<sandro> eprodrom: Yeah, pump.io folks wont recognize it in activity pump

<sandro> +1 (that motivates the change for me)

RESOLUTION: change name of ActivityPump to ActivityPub

<tantek> great, ship it

<aaronpk> unexpected agenda item: rename activitypump!

<sandro> activitypub

I have to leave now

<tantek> ok then

sounds like call is over anyway

good call!

<tantek> I have to leave soon too - AB meeting

<aaronpk> link to doodle poll for the pdx meeting: http://doodle.com/poll/5a8nfcfkqiwxwhpv

<aaronpk> just to have that in hte minutes

<wilkie> yay

<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting

<jaywink> thanks all! nice first phone meeting :) hangouts works fine

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Approve minutes of Jan 5 2016
Publish FPWD of ActivityPump
Our CR-Exit for AS2 will be: Each feature of AS2 must be used by at least two independent implementations
change name of ActivityPump to ActivityPub

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.145 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/01/11 15:13:58 $

Socialwg/2016-01-12-minutes

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

12 Jan 2016

Attendees

Contents

upcoming F2F meetings

June F2F in Portland

New Invited Experts

webmention draft

ActivityPump

micropub fpwd

AS2 Exit Criteria

Action Items

AOB

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions