View source for Socialwg/2016-08-23-minutes


= Social Web Working Group Teleconference =

== 23 Aug 2016 ==

See also: [http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-social-irc IRC log]

== Attendees ==

; Present
: ben_thatmustbeme, wilkie, eprodrom, cwebber, rhiaro, csarven, aaronpk, sandro
; Regrets<br />Chair
: eprodrom
; Scribe
: wilkie

== Contents ==

* [[#agenda|Topics]]
*# [[#item01|Approval of Minutes]]
*# [[#item02|Proposal: publish new WD of ActivityPub]]
*# [[#item03|Proposal: publish new WD of Social Web Protocols]]
*# [[#item04|Publish New Working Draft of LDN]]
*# [[#item05|ActivityStreams 2.0]]
* [[#ActionSummary|Summary of Action Items]]
* [[#ResolutionSummary|Summary of Resolutions]]


-----





&lt;aaronpk&gt; no, iOS, i don't want to update my phone right before i call in to this meeting

&lt;eprodrom&gt; Can anyone scribe?

I can scribe

&lt;eprodrom&gt; scribenick: wilkie

&lt;eprodrom&gt; akim, who's here?

&lt;cwebber2&gt; badoop

&lt;eprodrom&gt; Can anyone hear my voice?

not yet, no

&lt;rhiaro&gt; nope

&lt;cwebber2&gt; nope

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; nope

&lt;sandro&gt; Nope, eprodrom

&lt;eprodrom&gt; OK, that explains a lot

&lt;cwebber2&gt; :)

&lt;sandro&gt; we can hear each other but not you

&lt;eprodrom&gt; Give me 30 seconds to call back in

&lt;cwebber2&gt; I was thinking it was a pretty quiet start!

&lt;cwebber2&gt; yes

eprodrom: can you hear me now?

&lt;cwebber2&gt; :D

eprodrom: sorry about that. thanks for your patience. probably a good time to get started<br /> ... I will be chairing today because Arnaud is unavailable<br /> ... let's start out with approving the minutes for the previous meeting

=== Approval of Minutes ===

&lt;eprodrom&gt; PROPOSED Accept [https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-02-minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-02-minutes] as minutes for 20016-08-02 meeting

&lt;cwebber2&gt; +1

&lt;rhiaro&gt; +1

&lt;wilkie&gt; +1

&lt;eprodrom&gt; +1

&lt;aaronpk&gt; +1

you might need a colon? how does &quot;proposed&quot; work

<div id="resolution01"></div>
'''RESOLUTION: Accept [https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-02-minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-02-minutes] as minutes for 20016-08-02 meeting'''

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; +1

eprodrom: barring anything else we have resolved on that<br /> ... moving on to our next topic

<div id="item02"></div>
=== Publish a New Working Draft for ActivityPub ===

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-22#Registration https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-22#Registration]

&lt;Loqi&gt; Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)

eprodrom: probably an important thing but not listed is to cover registration for TPAC<br /> ... we are having a meeting at TPAC september 21st to 23rd<br /> ... if you haven't registered yet, please do. if you believe you will not be going also let us now. tentively or not.

&lt;tantek&gt; eprodrom++ for chairing

&lt;Loqi&gt; eprodrom has 41 karma (40 in this channel)

eprodrom: great. so. we don't have any other administrative issues to discuss.<br /> ... I'd like to move on to our discussion items.

&lt;tantek&gt; re: f2f is anyone else coming?

eprodrom: the first is an update on activity pub and LDN and have rhiaro start us off

rhiaro: last week I went to madison and worked on activity pub and made lots of progress.<br /> ... it might be better to have cwebber2 talk about those changes because we didn't do much to LDN but rather catch activitypub up to LDN

cwebber2: sounds good. first, rhiaro was an immense help.<br /> ... the first is to clarify client to client and client to server stuff. although some of this isn't in the document.<br /> ... first, there is a list of side effects of using various activities in activity streams.

&lt;tantek&gt; I'll add a specific item about f2f at the end of the agenda and try to get on the phone

cwebber2: and a separate section showing targetting and delivery and side effects of activities.<br /> ... these are cleaning separated which we've been talking about for some time<br /> ... one thing we discuss is having two separate documents and saying this makes sense from the payload and protocols<br /> ... but we have seen that the differences is a specialization of some of the LDN specifications<br /> ... clarifying and using much of the LDN stuff has made the sections clearer and more concise<br /> ... since we have linked data notifications referenced cleanly in activitypub and sections for client-client and client-server... we will keep it as one document<br /> ... rhiaro and I agree about this and tsyesika also seems to agree<br /> ... one concern is... &quot;I want to publish this note to my followers&quot; and somebody replies to you, how does this reply get out to your followers?<br /> ... pump.io has encountered this issue too. we did a demo implementation and drew things out on paper and we think we've come up with a method and put that in the spec

&lt;eprodrom&gt; Bravo

cwebber2: that if somebody does write a reply you can forward it under some conditions<br /> ... there are changes to make to the WD and I can make those and go toward a new working draft and feel confident about the state of the document

eprodrom: rhiaro, you were saying there aren't major changes to LDN at this point?

rhiaro: right. there are editorial changes and we should still publish a new LDN WD as well to make sure things are in sync.<br /> ... lately I've changed social web protocols to catch things up and so we need to publish a new version of that too

eprodrom: great. this might open a can of worms; we discussed last meeting... this is a social web protocols / ldn question, how do we handle having ldn and aligning it with others

rhiaro: right, that's next on my things to attack

eprodrom: ah, sorry, ok

rhiaro: I added it to the social web protocols and hopefully I can talk to julien about that

eprodrom: cwebber2, are we ready for a next version then?

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; changelog++

&lt;Loqi&gt; changelog has 2 karma (1 in this channel)

cwebber2: I think so I just have to add one thing

eprodrom: my next question is: should we go to working draft or wait until the group can review or just push the next version? I'm also fine with review on the WD.

rhiaro: I was thinking we would publish the new WD today and then have it reviewed since we have some time off

&lt;eprodrom&gt; PROPOSED: publish current editor's draft of ActivityPub plus changelog as new working draft

cwebber2: I agree with that because we want to get to CR either before or by TPAC and this would help us move along

&lt;tantek&gt; is there a link to the changelog?

eprodrom: before we start +1'ing it, cwebber2 and rhiaro, does this reflect what you want to do next?

cwebber2: yep

rhiaro: yep

&lt;eprodrom&gt; +1

&lt;tantek&gt; we really should provide a link to a changelog for anything we want to propose publishing

&lt;rhiaro&gt; +1

eprodrom: changelog right now?

&lt;cwebber2&gt; +1

&lt;wilkie&gt; +1

&lt;sandro&gt; +1

&lt;csarven&gt; +1

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; 0, don't really like publishing without a review or some changelog, but i will abstain in the interest of saving time

&lt;tantek&gt; 0, similarly

&lt;cwebber2&gt; I could write a fast changelog that'll be done before meeting end if necessary

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; traffic noises

&lt;cwebber2&gt; would that help?

&lt;tantek&gt; (cwebber2 yes please!)

&lt;tantek&gt; any document that is rec track should have a changelog with summaries

eprodrom: cwebber2, don't do the changelog during the call if you can help it, but some &lt;laughs&gt; have other opinions on that

<div id="resolution02"></div>
'''RESOLUTION: publish current editor's draft of ActivityPub plus changelog as new working draft'''

eprodrom: I'm going to mark this as resolved and... great

&lt;tantek&gt; I believe AS2, Micropub, Webmention have all done a good job of providing changelogs for every published draft and that's been very helpful

&lt;cwebber2&gt; ACK

eprodrom: in all aspects, next time we have proposals coming up from editors moving to WD that you bring a changelog with you. either something you can link or drop into the channel.<br /> ... great

&lt;tantek&gt; (if anyone would like examples of existing changelogs in the group)

eprodrom: I'd like to move on to the next topic

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; cwebber2: reading scrollback your notification issue sounds like salmentions

<div id="item03"></div>
=== Proposal: publish new WD of SWP ===

&lt;rhiaro&gt; [https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/commits/gh-pages https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/commits/gh-pages]

rhiaro: this morning I added PuSH and refactored a section. the link of the git log I dropped in the channel should give you an idea of the changes.

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; [https://indieweb.org/salmentions https://indieweb.org/salmentions]

rhiaro: I'd like to propose those changes.

eprodrom: do we have questions on Social Web Protocols?

&lt;tantek&gt; (since SWP is not rec-track, having an in-draft changelog is not as important)

eprodrom: ok. great. I'd like to ask... rhiaro would you mind adding a changelog to this document?

&lt;tantek&gt; rhiaro: can you provide a link to the draft you have staged to publish?

rhiaro: no problem

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; I mentioned Social Web Protocols on TWiG this week :D

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; tantek, is SWP non-rec-track?

eprodrom: I'd like to propose publishing this editors draft as a new working draft

&lt;eprodrom&gt; PROPOSED: publish [https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols] + Changelog as new working draft for Social Web Protocols

&lt;tantek&gt; ben_thatmustbeme: yes that's my understanding since it non-normatively compares / relates *other* specs

eprodrom: does that look right, rhiaro?

rhiaro: yeah, looks right

eprodrom: great

&lt;eprodrom&gt; +1

&lt;aaronpk&gt; +1

&lt;rhiaro&gt; +1

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; +1

eprodrom: please vote

&lt;cwebber2&gt; +1

&lt;wilkie&gt; +1

&lt;csarven&gt; +1

&lt;sandro&gt; +1

eprodrom: I'll give some time to look it over

rhiaro: just to add this has a less important time table but it is important that people not see it too out of date

&lt;cwebber2&gt; oops, realized I wasn't muted

&lt;cwebber2&gt; sorry for typing noises

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; +0 again as before

eprodrom: I think it is important to keep this up to date and appreciate that you took the time to do that

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; but it is important to get SWP changes out

eprodrom: tantek?<br /> ... I don't want to rush you. I know you are reading it now.

&lt;tantek&gt; rhiaro typo: &quot;ontent is deleted&quot;

&lt;rhiaro&gt; will fix :)

&lt;tantek&gt; (start of 3.2)

eprodrom: I need all the votes in

&lt;tantek&gt; +1 great update rhiaro. Thank you.

<div id="resolution03"></div>
'''RESOLUTION: publish [https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols] + Changelog as new working draft for Social Web Protocols'''

eprodrom: alright. great. I'm going to mark this as resolved. rhiaro, if you won't mind to fix that typo even if it isn't part of the resolution.<br /> ... next agenda item is to publish a new working draft of LDN

<div id="item04"></div>
=== Publish New Working Draft of LDN ===

eprodrom: rhiaro, can you tell us all what's going on with LDN

&lt;rhiaro&gt; [https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/#change-log https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/#change-log]

rhiaro: nothing substantive except some clarifications<br /> ... it does have a changelog here but it is just editorial stuff but thought it doesn't hurt to keep things up-to-date

eprodrom: great

&lt;tantek&gt; changelog++

&lt;Loqi&gt; changelog has 3 karma (2 in this channel)

&lt;aaronpk&gt; &quot;editorial&quot;

&lt;aaronpk&gt; that's not very descriptive :)

eprodrom: the document doesn't have a changelog?

rhiaro: I linked to the document that has a changelog

eprodrom: ah, I see, great<br /> ... maybe in the future, especially since you did say there are explanatory differences, to explain what those differences are

&lt;tantek&gt; +1 on that

eprodrom: everybody please mute if you aren't me &lt;laughs&gt; thank you

&lt;rhiaro&gt; This is the version to publish [https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/#change-log https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/#change-log]

eprodrom: the one on linkedresearch.org is the editor's draft? I believe?

&lt;rhiaro&gt; ED ready to be WD

&lt;eprodrom&gt; PROPOSED: publish [https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/ https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/] + detailed changelog as new working draft of LDN

eprodrom: great. so I am going to propose publishing this as a new working draft of LDN

&lt;rhiaro&gt; Looks good

&lt;tantek&gt; this is a second WD right? we already did a FPWD?

eprodrom: rhiaro, does that make sense to you?

&lt;rhiaro&gt; yep

eprodrom: and yeah, this is the second WD I believe

&lt;eprodrom&gt; +1

&lt;rhiaro&gt; +1

&lt;cwebber2&gt; +1

&lt;sandro&gt; +1

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; +1

&lt;aaronpk&gt; +1

eprodrom: (upon seeing rhiaro's affirmative on IRC) ok. great. if this makes sense, let's vote.

&lt;wilkie&gt; +1

&lt;tantek&gt; +1

&lt;csarven&gt; +1

eprodrom: &lt;laughs&gt; everyone is more willing to make progress when we've had 2 weeks off.<br /> ... and yes, next week we have off

<div id="resolution04"></div>
'''RESOLUTION: publish [https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/ https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/] + detailed changelog as new working draft of LDN'''

eprodrom: if you are to vote please do so. in this case I will mark it resolved.<br /> ... there is a new working draft. great.<br /> ... let's move on to our next item which is about AS2<br /> ... probably easier to have tantek chair while we go over the next item since it makes sense for me to address what is going on with AS2

&lt;aaronpk&gt; tantek is not on the phone

<div id="item05"></div>
=== ActivityStreams 2.0 ===

&lt;tantek&gt; I can't chair, I'm speaking in person at the AB meeting :/

eprodrom: ah. ok. I'll chair myself and try to push through this.<br /> ... so. the state of AS2, a brief recap, on AS2. We had our CR meeting.

&lt;tantek&gt; so that eprodrom can be free to discuss AS2 as editor

eprodrom: after our meeting we had some issues brought up by i18n group.<br /> ... we decided to pull out of CR to better address these concerns and we've been addressing them for the last few weeks.

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues]

eprodrom: as of today, jasnell_ did a few PRs to resolve these existing issues and so, depending on your measurement, we might be ready to go to CR right now<br /> ... however we have new issues that are currently on our list<br /> ... a couple of those are editorial<br /> ... those will probably not be a problem but there are at least 1 or 2 normative changes<br /> ... where I am, as an editor, wondering is if we need to get to 0 issues to reach CR, or is it better to go to CR with the document as we've agreed and resolve these in the next months

&lt;cwebber2&gt; vote going to CR

&lt;cwebber2&gt; *I vote

eprodrom: that's where we are at the moment. we are in an administrative point. as an editor, I want to move to CR and resolve as we go along<br /> ... ben?

&lt;tantek&gt; is sandro on the phone?

&lt;tantek&gt; we really need other people who were on the AS2 CR transition call to contribute to this discussion (apologies that I cannot)

ben_thatmustbeme: I was wondering if we go to CR and have normative changes, we have to redo CR. what does that entail

sandro: I am on the phone. the second version of CR involves us being willing to do it and its not a lot of work but it has about a 3 week turn-around so it is better to avoid it if you can

&lt;tantek&gt; in my experience any &quot;real&quot; / practical spec has at least 2 CRs

&lt;rhiaro&gt; He's done it, the i18n issues are resolved in the current ED

sandro: my understanding, though, is that we had a meeting (you weren't on this meeting) and we were waiting for these issues and jasnell_ said he would fix them and then said he would fix them today and we had resolved these

&lt;tantek&gt; that is, implementers of the first CR nearly always find substantial issue that require normative changes

&lt;aaronpk&gt; here is the thread [https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/336 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/336]

&lt;tantek&gt; and thus a second CR

sandro: what is the status of these edits? anyone know?

&lt;aaronpk&gt; and here is the new paragraph: [http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/core/index.html#biditext http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/core/index.html#biditext]

&lt;Loqi&gt; [James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0

eprodrom: yeah. jasnell_ has made a PR for changes to how we handle bi-directional text<br /> ... basically, for those who aren't following this, we came down to a fundamental difference between using bidirectional markers at the unicode level and using bidirectional markup in the html level<br /> ... there were strong resolution to not use the markup in certain fields and we can to a satisifactory compromise that doesn't require markup in the name field

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; what's the PR?

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/core/#naturalLanguageValues http://w3c.github.io/activitystreams/core/#naturalLanguageValues]

&lt;Loqi&gt; [James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0

&lt;tantek&gt; could you link to the &quot;satisfactory compromise&quot; for ther ecord?

eprodrom: jasnell_ made those changes and they are in the editor's draft... let me make sure... yes. section 4.7... I can drop this

&lt;tantek&gt; link to the *discussion* that resulted in the &quot;satisfactory compromise&quot;

eprodrom: ah, yeah, satisfactory compromise... let me see if I can link to that

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/pull/352 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/pull/352]

eprodrom: here is the pull request<br /> ... that jasnell_ made

&lt;aaronpk&gt; 336 has the discussion [https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/336 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/336]

eprodrom: let me see if I can summarize<br /> ... this is about using natural language and bidirectional text<br /> ... this is a significant change

&lt;sandro&gt; +1 that all sounds right

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues]

sandro: sounds like we solved the bidirectional issues

eprodrom: yes

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; that BIDI makes sense given the tests we conducted.

&lt;tantek&gt; is this the compromise? [https://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Activity_Streams_direction_notes#Some_tentative_conclusions https://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Activity_Streams_direction_notes#Some_tentative_conclusions]

eprodrom: we have 6 issues. one is easy to fix. one is normative and a change from a MAY to a SHOULD.

&lt;tantek&gt; issue 336 is too long to be considered a &quot;Summary&quot;

&lt;tantek&gt; shh trackbot

eprodrom: either than that... they seem to be resolved

sandro: sounds like there is nothing here that would need a second CR if we changed it? anything that would change implementations?

&lt;tantek&gt; my understanding is that NO properties are added to AS2 as a result of this discussion right?

&lt;aaronpk&gt; correct

&lt;tantek&gt; eprodrom: could you confirm ^^^ ?

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; right

&lt;tantek&gt; ok then I am +1

eprodrom: it doesn't seem like that a publisher or consumer would be significantly different between this MAY or SHOULD<br /> ... it is just a shift of emphasis, I'd think

sandro: we don't know what we want to do with this one at this point?

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; how long would it take to figure out the may or should?

eprodrom: I can't make that call right now<br /> ... I'd make it a SHOULD but jasnell_ probably has different ideas about it<br /> ... rhiaro?

rhiaro: realistically we would have a second CR on this

sandro: why?

rhiaro: seems like we will get feedback from implementers, unless you don't think so. seems like it would probably happen

sandro: I just want to avoid extra work

rhiaro: ok

&lt;tantek&gt; are we willing to write tests for this detail?

sandro: I feel like MAY vs SHOULD won't hurt but the safest thing we could do is make it at-risk

&lt;tantek&gt; or get i18n to write tests?

eprodrom: so put it as SHOULD and say &quot;at-risk&quot;

&lt;tantek&gt; that's one way to address may/should

sandro: or leave it as MAY and say &quot;at-risk&quot; and it may change to a SHOULD<br /> ... whatever way we think it is likely to go and just put it 'at-risk'

eprodrom: I like marking it 'at-risk' and publishing as-is

sandro: sounds good

&lt;tantek&gt; can we actually make it at-risk when i18n says it's a requirement?

sandro: and the other 5 issues don't seem like normative changes?

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/351 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/351]

&lt;rhiaro&gt; the https one?

&lt;tantek&gt; I'm worried that we drop it, then i18n objects when we try to go CR-&gt;PR

&lt;rhiaro&gt; isn't w3c ns taking care of that?

&lt;rhiaro&gt; it officially switched to https on 1 Aug I believe

&lt;rhiaro&gt; ..sandro?

eprodrom: one is normative but... it is whether we support the HTTP content or what makes most sense<br /> ... rhiaro, can you say this outloud?

sandro: I don't think I've thought about this for context uris, but for namespace URIs this doesn't change

rhiaro: right, but this changes javascript implementations... this is an implementation problem

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; which may is becoming a should?

sandro: it does seem possible that browsers will be a pain in this way

&lt;eprodrom&gt; [https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/354 https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/354]

eprodrom: my feeling is HTTPS makes most sense. our implementor base is small and this is the time to do it<br /> ... the only down-side is that there are some older libraries that don't support HTTPS but I think they are a smaller and smaller number<br /> ... and it makes sense to push it to HTTPS everywhere

sandro: let's make this at-risk too<br /> ... there are complexities here that I didn't think were there at first

&lt;csarven&gt; I hope there is alignment with [https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/347 https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/347]

eprodrom: let's make it HTTPS in the editor's draft and we'll mark it 'at-risk' that we might also support just HTTP

&lt;csarven&gt; ^ eprodrom

sandro: yeah. the main reason to not put HTTPS there is...

&lt;csarven&gt; The contents of @context stays as HTTP

&lt;csarven&gt; It is the reference to context in HTTP is a problem if on HTTPS - client side / browser issue

&lt;csarven&gt; Hope for the best and have implementations fix their stuff??

sandro: the URIs might need some place to mark that it is HTTPS or not otherwise it will pull it from the base url<br /> ... I never thought about the mixed-content warnings so I don't know what the right thing to do is

&lt;csarven&gt; ok with eprodrom 's suggestion with AT RISK

sandro: let's say 'at-risk' and figure it out.

&lt;rhiaro&gt; And maybe having it called out in the CR doc will help with getting feedback

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; [http://known.kevinmarks.com/2016/-inline-rtl-works-in-reverse-without-implementers-knowing http://known.kevinmarks.com/2016/-inline-rtl-works-in-reverse-without-implementers-knowing]

&lt;Loqi&gt; [Kevin Marks] ‮ inline RTL works in reverse without implementers knowing

&lt;Loqi&gt; #indieweb

eprodrom: we're ok with at-risk and then figure it out?

sandro: yep

eprodrom: ok. great.<br /> ... sounds like I have two 'at-risk' notes to put in. and besides that looks like we are ready to go and I can have a version ready to have out thursday?

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; just reference with &quot;//www.w3.org/...&quot; and make it decide on its own :P

eprodrom: does that work time-wise? rhiaro?

rhiaro: yeah<br /> ... if they say no for thursday we can do it next tuesday

eprodrom: ok!

sandro: let's get a new resolution on record

&lt;eprodrom&gt; ben_thatmustbeme: I'll keep that in mind

eprodrom: if anyone has a question about AS2 and what we are doing right now, this is a great time to ask

&lt;sandro&gt; PROPOSED: Proceed to CR with both ActivityStreams documents, including the changes worked out with i18n and items marked At Risk in this meeting, as per Ralph's go-ahead from the transition meeting.

&lt;cwebber2&gt; +1

&lt;eprodrom&gt; +1

&lt;rhiaro&gt; +1

&lt;sandro&gt; +1

&lt;csarven&gt; +1

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; +1

&lt;wilkie&gt; +1

&lt;KevinMarks&gt; +1

<div id="resolution05"></div>
'''RESOLUTION: Proceed to CR with both ActivityStreams documents, including the changes worked out with i18n and items marked At Risk in this meeting, as per Ralph's go-ahead from the transition meeting.'''

eprodrom: unless we have any objections, now is the time to do so<br /> ... now we have something to point to in terms of resolutions.

&lt;rhiaro&gt; cwebber2++ for speedy changelog!

&lt;Loqi&gt; cwebber2 has 70 karma

&lt;cwebber2&gt; thanks rhiaro :)

eprodrom: we are now at the top of the hour

&lt;cwebber2&gt; since I did a /me earlier, here's the changelog for log records [https://w3c-social.github.io/activitypub/#changes-from-13-june-2016-to-present-version https://w3c-social.github.io/activitypub/#changes-from-13-june-2016-to-present-version]

eprodrom: aaronpk, are you good with pushing micropub for two weeks from now? or should we extend?

aaronpk: I'm ok with waiting two weeks and come up with a more concrete proposal

eprodrom: great. how long do you think it will take? we can extend 10 minutes

&lt;tantek&gt; +1 on AS2 CR (sorry to be delayed, multitasking is hard)

aaronpk: it is fine. we can just wait

eprodrom: great. thank you very much. appreciate your flexibilty on that.

&lt;cwebber2&gt; good call!

eprodrom: thank you everybody for your time. I believe that wraps it up for us.

&lt;cwebber2&gt; productive :)

&lt;rhiaro&gt; wilkie++

&lt;Loqi&gt; wilkie has 33 karma

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; wilkie++

&lt;Loqi&gt; wilkie has 34 karma

&lt;cwebber2&gt; wilkie++

&lt;Loqi&gt; wilkie has 35 karma

thanks all

&lt;ben_thatmustbeme&gt; eprodrom++

&lt;Loqi&gt; slow down!

&lt;eprodrom&gt; trackbot, end meeting

&lt;cwebber2&gt; eprodrom++

&lt;tantek&gt; I'm worried about only 5 people coming to the f2f - will we have enough to talk about for 2 days?

== Summary of Action Items ==

== Summary of Resolutions ==

# [[#resolution01|Accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-02-minutes as minutes for 20016-08-02 meeting]]
# [[#resolution02|publish current editor's draft of ActivityPub plus changelog as new working draft]]
# [[#resolution03|publish https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols + Changelog as new working draft for Social Web Protocols]]
# [[#resolution04|publish https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/WD-ldn-20160823/ + detailed changelog as new working draft of LDN]]
# [[#resolution05|Proceed to CR with both ActivityStreams documents, including the changes worked out with i18n and items marked At Risk in this meeting, as per Ralph's go-ahead from the transition meeting.]]