Social Web Working Group Teleconference
08 Mar 2016
See also: IRC log
- wilkie, bengo, Arnaud, Rob_Sanderson, tantek, dmitriz, AnnB, aaronpk, Ira, sandro, rhiaro, eprodrom, KevinMarks, cwebber2, tsyesika
Arnaud: hello everyone
... we will wait a few minutes to see who else will join. sandro and eprodrom for instance should be on their way
... we don't have a loaded agenda so we aren't pressed for time
... I'm torn about waiting
tantek: I think it's up to you if you think we have enough
<azaroth> +1 :)
Arnaud: first the approval of the minutes from last meeting
Arnaud: any concerns? objections?
<eprodrom> just rejoining, sry
Arnaud: seeing no objections I declare them approved
... next week's meeting for tuesday will be skilled for travel for the F2F
... the following week there will be conflicts and that will be skipped as well
... the next meeting with be 03/29
... people are asked to go to the F2F wiki and note any dietary restrictions or concerns
... is rhiaro on the call?
rhiaro: yes. also favorite foods and preferences should be noted. it's a small group.
Arnaud: before we get into the agenda, one piece of info
... some people requested instead of webex we use uberconference, which is a free alternative
... some tried it and we were able to use it for about an hour with 4 people on the call
... it was ok and there were some echos and such but overall it worked
... though we don't know how it would scale. we think as a next step we can experiment at the F2F since there will be more than 4 on the call but less than normal
... you may want to experiment and make sure you can connect to uberconference before the meeting
Status on AS 2.0 Draft
Arnaud: there are a few things about the AS2 spec to get it to CR
... eprodrom, conformance section?
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 2 edits to Socialwg/2016-03-16 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97692&oldid=97689
eprodrom: there are some things on that section I need to run by jasnell and will hopefully get that done before the F2F
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-03-08 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97691&oldid=97684
eprodrom: the other thing is the validator
... one critiques about the validator is that AS2 is very permissive and an empty JSON document is a valid AS2 document
... the work with the validator is to have a spectrum of recommendations
... and to advise good style and what is likely to interop well
Arnaud: thank you. any comments / questions?
bengo: this is bengo!
bengo: I have two PRs on the test documents repo. is there anything wrong with those?
eprodrom: I have not seen them but I will check them out and get them pulled before next week. I'll look after the meeting
Arnaud: thank you. anything else?
Arnaud: sandro put together a page to capture the list of documents we have in the works
Arnaud: and the status on each document. I've looked at this page and it hasn't gotten much love. no edits since sandro put it together
... I wanted to raise this issue. not sure if people forgot about it, but we should update this page maybe each editor takes responsibility for the section they are editing
... are there any issues with this page to be raised? I see amy didn't see that it was there so hopefully it was that people didn't get a chance to see it or review it.
... questions or comments?
Face to Face Goals and Agenda
<cwebber> sorry I'm late
Arnaud: there was an agenda put together by the chairs and sandro
... trying to figure out how to make this meeting productive and efficient
Arnaud: is seems unreasonable to pick a winner among various specs. what seems reasonable is to note what the differences are and what strengths each have.
... something to guide a developer to choose one solution over another. this seems like something we can defend. something where people can work on specs in parallel and such that people can choose appropiately which to use.
... the working group charter will expire at the end of the year and it is unknown if there will be any extension
... the money is thin and it is unsure if there is any expectation of extension and we should assume we will end at the end of the year and how to best use the time we have left
... there are specs we can get to CR by june and publish at the end of year
... we should focus and not let differences of opinion to sidetrack us and we all agree not having anything to show is the worst case
<sandro> (sounds right to me)
Arnaud: so we should note and focus on what specs are good for and when they are appropriate
<shevski> that sounds good, where would this guidance live? in the social web protocols doc?
Arnaud: and defer to fellow chairs and open it to the rest of the group for suggestions
... as always the agenda is a wiki and one can feel free to add items to that agenda
<aaronpk> +1 this sounds like a good path
<Loqi> Aaronpk made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-03-16 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97693&oldid=97692
<Loqi> Abasset made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-03-16 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97694&oldid=97693
<Loqi> Cwebber2 made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-03-16 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97695&oldid=97694
Arnaud: I see rhiaro has +1 and she should be able to help us with this task with her work comparing and aggregating the specifications in her guiding document
... no one is on the queue so nobody is dying to speak
... so that's about it for the agenda. is there anything else anybody else wants to bring up today?
bengo: couple of weeks ago I mentioned I might not be able to get to Boston
<Loqi> @daviderwin :: @bengo @losowsky @gjbarb It is in development. I'll ping you soon. Thanks for the #w3 links. Will strongly consider adjusting to conform.
bengo: I missed the call because I was meeting with the Coral project leads
<shevski> +1 on demos
bengo: Coral is a mozilla project about making open source tools for online media
... there are factors where social web specs would fit with them
... they were intrigued and we discovered mozilla is a w3c member
... and they said they would look at implementing some of the specs for their socialweb usecases
... look out for them
AnnB: I was wondering if that guy is located in the east can he come to the f2f?
bengo: I think in NYC and I will remind them about the F2F next week
tantek: also the indiewebcamp. he is at mozilla so he can talk to the people in charge of standards
... I've emailed the coral folks in the past and got some positive noises but sometimes it takes somebody from the outside to get attention
bengo: I talked to them a while ago and there were just getting things going
tantek: did you send them the various specs
bengo: I sent several specs and will send them the document status page
tantek: thanks appreciate it
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to request demos, and spec progress at f2f
Arnaud: alright thank you. tantek is on the queue?
<cwebber> I just put our demo on the agenda
tantek: yes. there is a demo section on the [f2f] agenda and want to see the activitypump federation. ah thank you chris.
... add demos of tech to the agenda
... if you can update it to use activitypub that would be more awesome hint hint
tantek: we will also discuss drafts to publish so there is a required reading section which has only 3 things right now
... if you want to discuss more add things to that list
... we want very much to help editors to move forward with documents. any questions about that process, reach out to us
<cwebber> tantek, sorry, that won't happen by then, but we'll instead be able to demonstrate what will change between that and AP
tantek: we want to use the f2f to move this forward and empower editors to do so
Arnaud: thank you tantek
... anything else?
... if not, I think we'll be able to close the call early
Arnaud: I don't think we have anything in the tracker, do we?? we copy and paste this over but I'm not sure it is useful anymore.
... anyone want to give an update to the actions listed. there are a bunch still listed and I've been probing to have people clean that up.
... with actions... either you complete the action, bring it up to the group, or there is something blocking you.
... so maybe with the f2f, you should take a look at that list and assess what is blocking you
shevski: hey. I have a question: is there a list of where these specs are implemented.
... should we push to have more people using them
tantek: there is a list for activity streams somewhere off the homepage that lists implementations
... most of those are a little outdated or about AS1
<Loqi> Cwebber2 made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-03-16 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97696&oldid=97695
<Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-03-16 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97697&oldid=97696
<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams#Implementations <--- outdated implementations
Arnaud: btw when we go to CR we have to be formal about this. there is an implemention report we have to present to show the specs are implemented.
shevski: is it worth having one of the agenda items to update that doc or create a new doc for that?
... and talk about what/who is in the pipeline for implementation and start that work
Arnaud: I don't see why not
tantek: right now we need volunteers, we need that document to be cleaner. can people (looking at bengo) add new items to this list or move this to a more general location.
... should we make that an action, Arnaud?
Arnaud: a formal action?
Arnaud: we aren't doing that good at tracking those actions. for me it is really for bengo to figure out if this is useful to him... the formal action. not doubting the importance of this page.
<bengo> Maybe have implementation links/lists in the Document Status page sections?
aaronpk: not on the queue but I want to jump in. I have implementations listed in the spec. so you can see how many implementations there are right now.
Arnaud: maybe what we need is to put these on the document status page and we can add a link or a list
tantek: add a link don't duplicate work
sandro: you would rather not use a wiki for this aaronpk?
aaronpk: I have no trouble with the current method and will take PRs
sandro: going forward it cannot be in the spec because the list will change but the spec cannot change
... it surely is convenient, but we should aim to have it out of the spec at some point
tantek: perhaps when we go to CR we can have a list "at the point of CR" and link to a wiki for more
Arnaud: in the spec? it can be in the wiki, but it cannot be in the spec. we have to freeze the spec. it can have a pointer to implementations.
sandro: but not a frozen link
... what comes to mind is w3 wiki slash implementations and that would be nice to have all implementations of specs but maybe a wiki isn't good enough and editors want more control
tantek: wiki pages don't work because people can put things there and they disappear
sandro: good pages have commentary but also will have test results
<cwebber> AS2 has some implementations
Arnaud: I think a page of informal list of implementations so we know what's there. and then there is the CR list which shows a formal knowledge of what is capable but not let the world add whatever
... it would be useful to gather that information regardless
<cwebber> but not AP, AP has predecessor implementations in pump.io
<Zakim> bengo, you wanted to wonder "Has there been a call for implementations for AS2 yet?"
bengo: has there been a call for implementations for AS2?
<tantek> wiki pages for implementations lists by themselves in particular seem kind of ineffective
Arnaud: CR is that call for implementation
<sandro> Here's my idea of an Implementation Report: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/reports/index.html
tantek: there hasn't been a formal call for implementations at the w3c but these days usually there is some degree of implementation throughout
<Loqi> Aaronpk made 1 edit to Socialwg/DocumentStatus https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=97698&oldid=97606
tantek: it is your and your company's call when to implement
<sandro> or my first, from long ago: https://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out
bengo: I've burned some social capital with older specs but the spec is currently very good
Arnaud: that's the risk which is why formally there is that CR spec where people have agreed upon much of the spec and issues are closed
<tantek> it's a trade-off. in the past we'd (W3C) also get unimplementable specs because no one tried.
<shevski> sandro: re implementations, i was thinking something more human readable with context on use cases too
Arnaud: and there is a tradeoff between the two approaches where you wait too long to implement fully and are more likely to find issues
<AnnB> thanks Arnaud
Arnaud: anything else? if not I'll give back the time and we'll meet next at the F2F meeting
<bengo> +1 bye bye
<tantek> shevski - sounds worth discussing at the f2f
<Loqi> wilkie has 29 karma
Arnaud: although I personally will not be attending
<Loqi> wilkie has 30 karma
<AnnB> scribes are angels
Arnaud: thanks. [praise of wilkie follows]
<cwebber> one more thing!
Arnaud: thank you all for calling. bye
<cwebber> nm :)
<shevski> thanks all!
<cwebber> so to anyone interested
<cwebber> LibrePlanet is right after our meeting
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
<cwebber> you may wish to come!