- 1 Social Web Working Group Teleconference
Social Web Working Group Teleconference
12 Jan 2016
See also: IRC log
- aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, eprodrom, sandro, Rob_Sanderson, jasnell, wilkie, Arnaud, rhiaro, cwebber2, tsyesika, jaywink, tantek
- sandro, cwebber2_remote
- Summary of Action Items
- Summary of Resolutions
be on in a second, phone is crashing ;x
<eprodrom> Can we get a scribe for today?
<sandro> scribe: sandro
<ben_thatmustbeme> i can scribe too, just had to make sure i had a good keyboard
<rhiaro> I just created them sorry! I swear I remember doing it last week..
<rhiaro> So nobody will have reviewed them yet..
<wilkie> yeah. I remember you posting them to the mailing list D:
<cwebber2_remote> yay welcome frank!
<aaronpk> did they go to a different URL?
<rhiaro> wilkie: I can't even find my email!
<rhiaro> I was looking for evidence
<rhiaro> I remember editing the attendee list
<aaronpk> lol I see what happened
<rhiaro> because it's always wrong
<aaronpk> you did post them last week
<rhiaro> did I use the wrong date?
<wilkie> rhiaro: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-01-05-minutes
<aaronpk> nope, but the new page links to 2015
<wilkie> 2015 != 2016
Welcome to Frank Karlitschek, new Invited Expert from ownCloud project
<wilkie> dates are HARD
<aaronpk> fixed that oops
eprodrom: we use IRC for voting, out-of-bank discussion
<rhiaro> okay, retract my previous statement, minutes were there all along
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of Jan 5 2016
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of Jan 5 2016
upcoming F2F meetings
eprodrom: March, hosting at MIT
<cwebber2_remote> welcome Frank !
<cwebber2_remote> that was probably me, it looks like I never successfully muted (using someone else's phone, not sure why I failboated so bad)
<cwebber2_remote> also I accidentally hung up, I'm doing awesome
<jaywink> sorry me, first time :)
<Loqi> Rhiaro made 2 edits to Socialwg/2015-01-05-minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87517&oldid=0
<Loqi> Sandro made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-01-12 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87515&oldid=87513
<Loqi> Sandro made 1 edit to Socialwg/AS2 CR https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87518&oldid=87448
<cwebber2_remote> o/ jaywink
<Loqi> Aaronpk made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-01-12 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87516&oldid=87515
June F2F in Portland
aaronpk: Okay to host at ESRI Portland office
... maybe I should create a doodle poll
aaronpk: I will
<Loqi> us has 1 karma
eprodrom: any obvious conflicts
New Invited Experts
<wilkie> hello frank!
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
aaronpk: It was published!
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> No new updates
sandro: social-web-protocols was also published at the same time
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
ben_thatmustbeme, can you do that?
<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
<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
<cwebber2_remote> my phone keeps dropping off :
<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
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Publish FPWD of ActivityPump
RESOLUTION: Publish FPWD of 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...
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!
eprodrom: I'm fine with activitypump
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: 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
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
<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
<trackbot> action-84 -- Sandro Hawke to Bring issue to i18n -- due 2015-12-09 -- OPEN
<sandro> not clear, will figure out.
<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> 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
<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!
I have to leave now
<tantek> ok then
sounds like call is over anyway
<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
<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]