From W3C Wiki

13 Sep 2016

See also: IRC log


tantek, aaronpk, cwebber, csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, bengo, rhiaro, wilkie, akuckartz
ben_thatmustbeme, aaronpk


<ben_thatmustbeme> I can scribe, though i'll not be sure who is speaking

<ben_thatmustbeme> not great audio

<cwebber2> it's fine for me

<csarven> fine

<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme


tantek: first thing is approval of minutes of last week

<tantek> PROPOSED approve minutes from last week

<cwebber2> +1

<cwebber2> the JIT meeting log review tradition lives on


<aaronpk> +1

<csarven> +1

RESOLUTION: approve minutes from last week

<cwebber2> tea packs!

tantek: as a reminder, we have no telcon next week, but we do have our F2F coming up


<Loqi> Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)

<cwebber2> oh hello rhiaro !

<wilkie> hehe

tantek: we also have the plenary day at TPAC, in the past we had several sessions related to the WG, so expect wednesday to be a pretty busy day


tantek: and I believe TimBL has his talk on redecentralization on the morning of wednesday

<cwebber2> proposal?

sandro: tantek, have you proposed ?? on TPAC

<rhiaro> cwebber2: for the tpac plenary session

<tantek> 08:35-09:05: Research work on redecentralization of the Web - Tim Berners-Lee

tantek: back to discussion items

<cwebber2> evan is remote I think

tantek: is anyone else going to be on other than the 6 of us?


<Loqi> Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)


tantek: first item on the discussion items, pubsubhubbub, what do we need to go the FPWD?
... we have an ED, and there are no issues, which i'm going to attribute to a lack of attention, not that no issues exist
... is he on the call?

sandro: no, i'm a little concerned that he hasn't been on the call last week or this week, he created the draft and hasn't been around since

tantek: we may need to add a co-editor


sandro: i don't think anyone on the call has any extra bandwidth

<aaronpk> i am interested but do not have bandwidth for another spec!

<cwebber2> :)

<bengo> :)

tantek: just in case, i'll drop a link in to the chat
... my personal (non-chair) opinion is that this draft does make several improvements as aaronpk suggested

<wilkie> I'm looking forward to this draft getting moved along

sandro: it needs to make CR in a month, its not going to get to REC

tantek: thats true, but i think its worth getting a note either way
... sometimes people outside w3c don't understand the difference between a rec and a note
... i would certainly like to see it published by the w3c in some aspect


tantek: next item is LDN by rhiaro and csarven
... they are asking for people to review, and file substantiative issues before F2F


tantek: that stikes me as fast, but we've done other things fast in the WG
... theres been a lot of dev in the last month, and only a few open issues, and there is even a test suite in progress
... would like to commend the editors on that

rhiaro: i think you've summarized things well, we've had feedback from implementors and potential implementors. We've been doing our own implementations, we have exit criteria, we are working on implementation report template. we just want attentive review by the group
... this gives everyone a week and a half to review it before the TPAC

tantek: is the current ED ready for a new WD?

rhiaro: yes, there are a few editorial changes, but normative changes are frozen right now
... i don't know thats necessary for CR, but if we need to do that, we can

tantek: its actually very necessary, one of the things for CR is getting wide-review, and this is our newest draft

rhiaro: we have some of that in the issues

tantek: ?? i only see 1 new issue by someone that i don't recognize

rhiaro: they aren't all opened by people outside the group, but there has been some discussion by others outside the group

tantek: i know that showing wide review can be the hardest part to show


tantek: i'd strongly suggest anoter WD to help with that, do you have a changes section?

rhiaro: link in IRC

<rhiaro> PROPOSED: Publish new WD of LDN based on current ED

<tantek> +1 (chair hat off on that)

<rhiaro> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<csarven> +1

<akuckartz> +1

<aaronpk> +1

rhiaro: i should add that i'm going to reach out to the horizontal review wgs

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<wilkie> +1

<sandro> +1

<Loqi> sandro: ben_thatmustbeme left you a message 20 minutes ago: meeding dial in info doesn't have a link anywhere, just going to an old link where it asks for meeting # just seems to keep loading the same page over and over after entereing the meeting number, doesn't even get to asking for a PW

RESOLUTION: Publish new WD of LDN based on current ED

tantek: all +1s so lets declare this and move on
... part of our job as chairs is to help the specs along, so i think this will help
... i've tried to set expectations for F2F, did that make sense, any additional questions about that? the additional questions are going to be about implementations, implementations interop, implementations that are not from the editors

rhiaro: we'll be able to demonstrate some at TPAC, hopefully beyond the editors

tantek: do you have any at-risks?

rhiaro: we have 1 at-risk, we're hoping to add it to the namespace, but there is a w3c process to that

tantek: is that a specific features?

rhiaro: the namespace is set to ldp for the whole spec ???

tantek: thats not really what at-risk means

sandro: this is fine, its a small part of it that might change between a small value change

tantek: thats not my understanding, but we should check the spec

(arguement over what people "BELIEVE")

tantek: so any features at-risk?

rhiaro: there aren't any features at risk no

(rhiaro i missed all that, can you put that in the minutes?)

<rhiaro> The ActivityStreams2 media type support is at risk

tantek: any other questions about LDN from the group?
... there is a strong suggestion to file any substantiative issues, which i want to underscore
... moving on to activitypub


tantek: it looks like chris and jessica. there is a request to please read the latest ED, and file any subs. issues before TPAC
... would like to go to CR at TPAC
... one question i'd like to ask, for several F2F meetings, we've discussed a federation implementation and wanted to know how long it would take to update the implementation to support the lastest spec

cwebber2: i'm not directly involved in other than answering quesitons. I have my own implementation
... there are internal transitions going in the group, but i don't know if anyone has an plans to do that right now

tantek: i'm guessing mediagoblin was the version you demonstration before?

cwebber2: yes, previously it was mediagoblin using's spec, but now i plan to update mediagoblin to use AP
... i've stepped away a little from mediagoblin, i have been working on my own other implementation

tantek: i think one of the things was to get mediagoblin up to date before going to CR
... whats left on pubstrate?

<rhiaro> s/pubstraight/pubstrate

cwebber2: i should be able to demonstrate it at TPAC

tantek: that kind of fresh prototype is good, and we look forward to that demo, but to set expectations, it's a bit concerning that it isn't working with mediagoblin at the moment

cwebber2: i don't remember any discussion about that exactly

tantek: i believe there was a concern of having ANY implementations of it before going to CR

rhiaro: i don't remember anything about needing implementations before going to CR

<aaronpk> scribenick: aaronpk

ben_thatmustbeme: i thought implementations from people outside of the editor was required for transitioning to CR

sandro: no implementation is required for transition *to* CR, but out of CR, it's very nice to have implementation experience. technically just the editor's is enough but it would be nice for other implementations as well

tantek: per w3c process today, there is no explicit requirement that there be implementations before CR
... what we and others have been doing is adopting a convention of there being multiple implementations including by those outside the group in order to shake out substantive issues
... i can cite other examples like CSS and webapps. the typical result is that when external implementations start it brings up issues that require additional CRs

<ben_thatmustbeme> I was looking at this

tantek: so while it feels like you may have made progress by having a CR, you haven't actually made progress to exiting CR because you still have to close substantive issues

<ben_thatmustbeme> i see, i misread that

sandro: that's not a decision this group has made, we didn't hit that bar for AS2

<ben_thatmustbeme> it says "how it will be demonstrated"

sandro: i don't think we have a list of implementations

tantek: we do, it's in the spec and we checked that as part of the transition call as well

cwebber2: there's no requirement to switch AS1 to AS2 implementations right? it feels very strange. i worked on having an implementation. but to be told that an existing thing must convert before exiting CR is strange. [cwebber is cutting out]

<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick:ben_thatmustbeme

tantek: we did discuss several times how we would figure out how to get implementation experience from as1 implementers

rhiaro: i wanted to say that i have implemented parts of AP as well so we can work on getting those working together before TPAC

sandro: i still don't understand what you were saying about implementations of AS2, there is a link in the spec for implementation reports and it goes to an empty web-page


tantek: maybe i was looking at the wrong link..... ahh i see the confusion. on our home page there is a link


tantek: multiple of those are outside the group, where as the spec links to something else which is empty
... i believe the entire time we were discussing it in the group we were looking at the wiki page, not for implementation reports as we weren't at CR yet
... if theres some way we can make that more discoverable from the spec or somewhere, i'll leave that to the editors

sandro: hopefully we'll get actual implementation reports for it soon

tantek: yes, that's the best way
... cwebber2 i believe you asked the question about existing implementations and that's what led us down this thread
... i wish evan was here as i know we had that discussion with him. according to Zakim, bengo is on the call
... bengo are you still there?

<bengo> I am on chat but not call

<bengo> (couldn't access new webex page, reset w3 password, takes awhile to propagate)

cwebber2: i'm just going to speak clearly how i feel about this. after the call last week, i have dropped everything on the floor to do what i needed to get this to CR. I never understood that updating an existing implementation to this before CR. I feel like i've done everything i possibly could do to get this to CR and i feel like i'm being blocked now. It doesn't sound like this is a standard process thing, it should have been made clear to

me much earlier

(cwebber2, is that a good minuting of that?)

tantek: as I understood it was that there was work on converting it activity pub was what you were working on. And if there is no implementation.....

cwebber2: i'm talking about the UPDATING and existing implementation
... that was not expressed clearly

aaronpk: as someone relatively outside of this spec, i don't remember which state (before CR after,etc) i remember seeing several times discussion of "its coming" and i thought there was work on AS2 in mediagoblin

cwebber2: we have been working on switching to as2 from as1, but our focus was on api. everything we have been doing has been informed by our work on
... i was not clear on the expectation that mediagoblin neede to implement activitypub before CR

tantek: i'm not saying that its a blockade, its just surprising for those of us that had that understanding. there isn't a requirement for that in the process, but that was our understanding of how it was working.
... just because there was that expetation and surprise, it does not mean that its blocking you

cwebber2: part of the reasons i implementation with pubstrate. I wanted to do it without too much mediagoblin influence
... that way it was completely separate, and it didn't have too much bias. does that make sense?

tantek: Yes, very much, and i commend you on that insightfulness on doing that. i think aaronpk has written and thrown away micropub implementations just like that. i think we should just look at what parts are implemented and what are not.

cwebber2: i certainly see a reason to hold off on CR as i have not started a test suite, and i haven't set up implementation reports, etc

tantek: there isn't a requirement for a test suite, we just ask a plan on how a test suite will be done
... we do need your assessment of what features you would consider at risk

cwebber2: i think the biggest challenge with AP is that the authorization section is going to be a little more vague, changing tokens, etc
... there was an earlier ticket about moving to a new section that is intentionally vague
... other things i'm pretty confident on, but i could do a more thorough review for sure

tantek: one option i would suggest, which is "if there are less than 2 implementations of a specific feature, than it should be at-risk"
... if you have any feature that you don't both implement and preferably interoperate with
... you might want to talk with aaronpk, about how to write out the auth / tokens issue
... i really appreciate your working with us, there are a lot of first time editors in this group so its really great the work you have done

<cwebber2> yes, a new WD would be good

<cwebber2> there's a changelog

tantek: just as we asked for LDN, are there changes you want to republish as a WD
... can we get a link to the changelog?


tantek: we are going to go a few minutes over if there are no objections

<wilkie> sounds good

<tantek> PROPOSED: Publish new WD of Activitypub based on editor's draft

<rhiaro> +1

<cwebber2> +1


<akuckartz> +1

<wilkie> +1

tantek: i see a bunch of changes here which is certainly worthy of publishing a new WD

<sandro> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish new WD of Activitypub based on editor's draft

<cwebber2> can do

<rhiaro> that should be possible today

tantek: if there is some way you can get that out before TPAC, that would be great
... anyone that want to provide any other update?

aaronpk: i can give a quick update. on micropub i have 2 issues i'm waiting for commenter to reply on those, some may require some discussion. webmention hasn't had much changes, mostly editorial that i haven't had time to make yet


<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Micropub

aaronpk: i have enough changes on micropub that its worth people to review the changes since the last

tantek: can you add that to the required reading section for F2F?
... how are we with test-suite completeness (to all our editors)
... do we have a test for every feature?

aaronpk: not yet

tantek: for others going to CR, that's going to be the next thing is looking for, test coverage, and implementation reports

sandro: i think we should spend a minute talking about TPAC
... how do we pitch a session on it. I think a title for open discussion would be "Decentralized Web"
... some sort of framework for it would be good, if Tim gave a keynote for it, it would be good

tantek: i don't know the content of the talk, if you can find it out

s/decentralized web/decentralized social web

sandro: i think "decentralized web" is too generic and not a great title

tantek: certainly that would cover things outside our charter

sandro: i think of this as maybe setting the stage for what the next WG would be, not the status of this group as much

tantek: i think that if we are able to show demos to those outside the WG, that would be good

<cwebber2> I can probably do one

sandro: who would be up for giving a demo? aaronpk is always good for that right?

<rhiaro> o/

<KevinMarks> Indeed, and decentralized web has an existing group

aaronpk: yeah i can do that

tantek: i think this group has been pretty good about having demos too

<csarven> \o

rhiaro: i can demo too

<KevinMarks> I can join in remote demos

csarven: as can i (via emoji)

<wilkie> some sort of primitive text emoji

sandro: i'll update the wiki page and say we will have demos and what people might want to do in the future

<akuckartz> emoji++

<Loqi> emoji has 0 karma (1 in this channel)

<KevinMarks> Do we need to parse emoticons as well as emoji now?

tantek: i think if we can demonstrate a positive example of evolving multiple approaches, which is something that is uncommon in the w3c, so if you can keep that in mind in your demos

<sandro> "Decentralized Social Web, Discussions and Demo Session"


<csarven> I can do one that incorporates AS2, LDN, Web Annotations, Solid

tantek: if no other business
... thank you everyone
... see at least some of you next week

<aaronpk> ben_thatmustbeme++

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 168 karma (54 in this channel)

<wilkie> I'll be in portland hopefully with the free time to be remote

<wilkie> ben_thatmustbeme++

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 169 karma (55 in this channel)

<wilkie> cwebber2++

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 71 karma

<tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++ thank you for minuting

<Loqi> slow down!

<tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++ thank you for minuting

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 170 karma (56 in this channel)

<tantek> sandro: FYI, "Social Web" breakout session from TPAC 2015 (minutes, wiki, photo)

<sandro> thanks

trackbot end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approve minutes from last week
  2. Publish new WD of LDN based on current ED
  3. Publish new WD of Activitypub based on editor's draft