- 1 Social Web Working Group Teleconference
- 1.1 24 May 2016
- 1.2 Attendees
- 1.3 Contents
- 1.4 Summary of Action Items
- 1.5 Summary of Resolutions
Social Web Working Group Teleconference
24 May 2016
See also: IRC log
- present, Arnaud, sandro, tantek, ben_thatmustbeme, aaronpk, annbass, rhiaro, cwebber, eprodrom
- ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro
- Summary of Action Items
- Summary of Resolutions
<annbass> having probs getting webex going
<KevinMarks> I dialed in, but silence
<sandro> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 24 May 2016
<sandro> KevinMarks, we're on the call....
<KevinMarks> I think i was first
<cwebber2> dialing in
<ben_thatmustbeme> i can scribe
<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
<Arnaud> Approval of Minutes of 2016-05-17 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-05-17-minutes
approval of last weeks minutes
<cwebber2> looks good
Arnaud: any objections to approving those minutes?
<cwebber2> +1, approve 'em
Arnaud: hearing no objections, i'll declare them approved
update on F2F
Arnaud: we are two weeks away. again, please go to the wiki page and indicate your attendance, even if its regrets, or remote participation
<annbass> I'm so bummed to not be able to go; ditto for IndieWebCamp
Arnaud: there aren't too many listed, but the chairs had a meeting and agreed that we had enough key members there
... we have updated a list of topics, but if there is anything else people wish to add, add proposals and the chairs will try to accomidate
... any immediate comments, questions, etc on the meeting?
aaronpk: nothing new on our end, we are all set. I added a bunch of information to the wiki page, directions, food, etc
Arnaud: if there are no other questions, we can move on.
... there is a question of when the next telcon will be, next weekend is memorial day meeting
... when do we meet next
sandro: I'd like to meet next week so we can hopefully get AS2 to CR
rhiaro: I wanted to ask to meet next week, so i can hopefully get a new WD of SWP
Arnaud: hearing that i am proposing to keep the normal schedule next week. Any problem with that?
tantek: Arnaud, would you consider that if for some reason, those both fall through, we don't bother. So i'd say +1 to telcon if one of those is ready to ask the group to publish
<KevinMarks> deciding when? Monday?
Arnaud: so you are specifically interested in not having the call next week?
<rhiaro> I'm definitely going to ask about SWP next week
tantek: no, its a matter of being able to make other plans or not
<rhiaro> Draft will be ready by end of day tomorrow
tantek: if we are going to have these drafts ask to be published, hopefully those drafts will be ready a few days before
... maybe that they have publish ready drafts have them ready by friday?
Arnaud: and then people review them on memorial day weekend?
sandro: you have a better use for a holiday ? :P
tantek: I don't want to do a telcon just to rubber stamp
... its fine to do a telcon to publish, but to agree to publish, people have to have time to review
Arnaud: we will have the telcon ready next week, per the regular schedule, but if the editors expect to be able to publish, they be ready by friday
tantek: and then there is the one after the meeing too
Arnaud: i think we can decide that at the F2F
Webmention CR update
<Loqi> @w3c :: Webmention is a W3C Candidate Recommendation (Call for Implementation) https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5439
sandro: Webmention has been published as a CR
<annbass> hubba hubba!
<tantek> and https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5439
<tantek> congrats all!
Arnaud: this happend just yesterday?
<KevinMarks> we did use cases and requirements, I remember
sandro: the transition meeting was fairly uneventful, but for an awkward moment of us not having use-cases and requirements
<rhiaro> sandro: I can put that in SWP too
<rhiaro> or, links to existing articles about the comparisons
sandro: I also got some requests from people asking for notes about how it relates to trackback/pingback
<KevinMarks> SWAT0 has been satisifed with webmention, which is a use case we brought in
Arnaud: for those new to w3c process, we now look for implementation reports, and w3c wide review.. the key is to meet exit criteria
<tantek> FYI re: webmention over trackback/pingback: https://indiewebcamp.com/Webmention-faq#Why_webmention_instead_of_pingback
sandro: now is the time to drum up publicity for people who might be interested in trying it out
Arnaud: we want to advertise it as much as possible and get them to provide implementation reports
tantek: and feedback too
<KevinMarks> see https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Use_Cases and https://aaronparecki.com/notes/2015/07/14/1/swat0
tantek: thats part of the goal of CR, get feedback from others trying to implement it. A good spec, they should be able to implement it without talking to us, and if they can't, we should know that
<KevinMarks> webmention.rocks does that
sandro: here's a dogfoody idea, do we have a webmentionable page about webmention that people can webmention to?
aaronpk: the validator does that but doesn't hold it permanently
sandro: i think that would be useful
aaronpk: i can make a page for that
tantek: KevinMarks pointed out that we did have the use-case of swat0 and webmention does help implement SWAT0
<KevinMarks> could we add a wm header to the spec? webmention.io, webmention.herokuapp.com or mention-tech would all work
tantek: just like we should have informative text about pingback, etc. We could have something about swat0
<KevinMarks> we have done annotations with wm and fragmentions
<aaronpk> KevinMarks: it's already there :-)
sandro: i also got feedback from shepazu about including a different use-case
Arnaud: if issues come up in CR that cause changes that would effect compliance, we would have to issue a new CR first
... in my experience its quite common, but after that point you already have multiple implementations and probably already meet the exit criteria
tantek: thats my experience too, my understanding is we would still need to meet them minimum CR time (4 weeks?)
<tantek> I also pointed out that the implementation reports can be expected to provide additional use-cases as well (per feedback about including more/different use-cases)
sandro: one other procedural thing that came up, we saw internationalization review, but there are others which we don't have in our charter
... usually you do that before CR
<annbass> important liaison!
tantek: one more thing to request on webmention, to exit CR, we want a complete test suite, we entered CR with a partial test suite, and thats a critical piece to complete
... i wanted to give aaronpk a chance to respond before we move on
aaronpk: the implementation report lists all the things to test, and i plan to add them to webmention.rocks, but there are a few things that would have to be done manually by people.
tantek: do you have a rough idea of when it would be ready?
aaronpk: no, i can't say anything to that right now
aaronpk: my hope with the stuff that i wrote up, is to help you know what it is you need to look for in receiving, if you go through that, you have to self review.
... some of those i will be able to write tests for, some I won't
tantek: as long as we can document what features we have claimed implementations for but don't necessarily have tests for
... if we have features that we cannot have tests for, we should be clear about what that list is
... applies to all of our specs obviously
update on AS2.0
Arnaud: Evan, we were expecting a WD, please tell us whats up?
eprodrom: i just shared links for the editor's draft, but the publish of the WD is taking some time to get going, it should be up in the next 24h, if thats the case, i'll update the group via email. We don't have a WD, we probably can't discuss taking it to CR
Arnaud: to clarify, is the editor's draft ready for publication? is it just a matter of publishing to the TR space?
eprodrom: yes, everyone can view it in the editor's draft now. there will be minor errors or things i have to clean up, but the content will be what will go up on WD
Arnaud: the expecation is that will happen before friday, and hopefully next week we can have a vote on requesting to take it to CR
... any question or comments?
request for review of JF2
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
<KevinMarks> ben: I finally have time to do updates on jf2 and i would like to share them wiht the group
ben_thatmustbeme: Can people look over jf2 and give me some feedback; I made some updates
<KevinMarks> ben: I want to get feedback from the group
<tantek> summary of changes since we last talked about it?
Arnaud: all the w3c drafts should be in the w3c space?
sandro: no, james resisted that with as2
Arnaud: as far as I know w3c is deploying a bunch of tools to archive, and none of this happen sif it's not in w3c space
sandro: this is true, it's not clear that any of these tools are useful yet, trying to figure out how to deploy the archiving thing
ben_thatmustbeme: none are, are they?
Arnaud: that doesn't mean it's okay
tantek: last time we talked about this we made a deliberate decision to have editors keep the specs in their repos, in SF
sandro: we might want to reconsider if there's a problem, I'll try to find out
ben_thatmustbeme: I don't think many people have read it yet, it's my first draft, so before I ask I'd like input
tantek: when do you think you'll ask for that
ben_thatmustbeme: barring any issues, it's been very useful for us (aaronpk and I) already, it simplifies things for working with individual objects coming out of microformats
... could ask any time, just want wg review first
tantek: next week, face to face?
ben_thatmustbeme: next week, sure
<scribe> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
rhiaro: i just updated the mentioning section, i'm going to continue to update the other sections. It was more bullet points before, but now its more prose
... I'm hoping to have it up in a couple days and certainly by friday
rhiaro: i also added text on how it relates to other specs
Arnaud: any other questions?
tracking of other document status
Arnaud: any other updates anyone wants to give?
cwebber2: I guess its a big one , but we discussed releasing a new WD of activitypub. I incorporated a few updates, but I don't think anybody raised any other issues to it
tantek: ben roberts has been helping me get a github version of the post type discovery up and hopefully i'll have it ready by the F2F
cwebber2: i just wanted to make sure that no one raising any issues on the call is it OK for me to publish an updated WD
cwebber2: I guess what i'm asking for is an explicity vote
tantek: is there a list of changes?
cwebber2: pasted in chat
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish the latest ActivityPub editor's draft
Arnaud: anyone else?
RESOLUTION: Publish the latest ActivityPub editor's draft
<tantek> minor editorial nit: s/ActivityStreams Working Group/Social Web Working Group
Arnaud: any other good news?
tantek: now that you have a WD ready to publish, hows the implementation going?
cwebber2: after the F2F i plan on doing a complete and independant implementation and that will be my complete focus between this and the next F2F
Arnaud: anyone else?
... Any other business people would like to bring up?
Arnaud: thank you all
<tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++ thanks for scribing!
<cwebber2> later, *
<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 145 karma
Arnaud: we'll have a meeting next week,
<annbass> thanks Arnaud and Ben / Amy
Arnaud: see you next week
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]