- DRAFT -
Social Web Working Group Teleconference
14 Feb 2017
See also: IRC log
- aaronpk, annbass, ben_thatmustbeme, bengo, csarven, julien, rhiaro, sandro, tantek
<scribe> scribenick: aaronpk
approve past meeting minutes
tantek: can I get some +1s for approving all the minutes?
evanpro: +1 they look fine
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1 they were all quite short thankfully
<julien> (there was a lot to read!)
tantek: okay, the minutes are approved
RESOLUTION: approve minutes from Dec 6, Dec 13, and Jan 10
tantek: straw poll, does this new time good for people? neutral? or worse?
<sandro> +1 new time is slightly better for me
<ben_thatmustbeme> -0 slightly worse but doable
<annbass> fine with me, but I'm much more flexible than others (being retired)
tantek: seeing no objections and only slightly worse from one person, we'll stick with this.
RESOLUTION: the new telcon time is the time of this call
evanpro: which tuesday of the month are we doing our calls on?
tantek: that's our next topic, we've been agreeing each time. any proposals for tuesdays in march?
<ben_thatmustbeme> no conflicts with any tuesday in march for me
aaronpk: -1 to march 28th, everything else is fine
<sandro> (no difference to me)
<tantek> note the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th are the tuesdays
<csarven> definitely not the last week of march
<csarven> 14, 21 best
tantek: any objections to the 14th? any counterproposals?
PROPOSED: next telcon is the 14th
RESOLUTION: our next telcon will be March 14th 11am Eastern time
note that the 12th is daylight savings time!
remaining CR specs to PR
tantek: first one is activitypub, chris are you there?
cwebber: i have not as good news as i'd hoped
... i ended up spending a lot of time preparing other projects for releases and preparing talks, but did not advance the stuff in the group itself
... i'm hoping to send an update to the list with a prototype of a test suite
tantek: are there any issues that have arisen since the last telcon that need attention?
cwebber: not that i'm aware of
tantek: okay let's move on to AS2. evan?
evanpro: i think we have some good news. we've had a number of implementation reports come in, around 6?
... i was looking at which features had been implemented in which reports, but realized that amy had a fantastic script to generate that automatically
<sandro> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams LINKS IT
evanpro: amy can you share the URL?
evanpro: if you can take a look at that, a big part of the vocabulary is green which is nice
... there are a few that are unimplemented, and a few that have a single implementation
<tantek> wow this looks great!
evanpro: two things: if there are parts of the vocab that are unimplemented, that people feel cannot be left behind, my review of that table is that there was nothing on there that I wasn't willing to see drop off
... i wanted to check with other folks, and if that's the case then let's just drop those out of toe vocabulary to move to PR
<rhiaro> I didn't rerun the script for the new reports yet
<tantek> one question for Evan (can you repeat Sandro on the phone?) which / how many of the implementations are from outside the group?
<KevinMarks> -1 to new telcon time, (survivorship bias)
<tantek> KevinMarks: except that the people here on the call are about the same as recent telcons at the old time - so actual data of attendance disputes your assertion of survivorship bias
evanpro: for example, the "place" object type, we have implementations of lat/lng, one of altitude, and none of accuracy
sandro: tantek asks how many implementations are from outside the group?
evanpro: i think we have two from outside
<tantek> which ones?
sandro: i know web annotations needs a bunch of stuff here, so i nudged them to get us implementation reports
... i know at least rob sanderson submitted his and that hasn't been reflected in the table yet
<tantek> we still need them to submit implementation reports for AS2 in particular, not just assume "by transitive"
<sandro> yes, I made that clear
<tantek> we have pretty particular tests and such
<tantek> thanks sandro
evanpro: are these implementation reports for as2 or from web annotations?
<sandro> I don't think we have tests, tantek
<sandro> on stuff like this.
<sandro> I think we just ask if you're using this term properly
evanpro: what i was hoping to do today was to say we have implementations here and take some terms out of this CR and move to PR
... it sounds like you're saying there are some properties that webannotations uses that aren't reflected in these reports
<tantek> agreed with dropping any unimplemented properties (with annotations exception)
sandro: i know chris has talked about activitypub needing some of these and not sure if these are all green yet
<sandro> cwebber ping ?
cwebber: the only ones i'm seeing that are a big deal are followers/following
<tantek> rhiaro: any chance you can regenerate http://as2.amy.gy/reports.html with latest reports?
sandro: the orange bars are the most concerning, since somebody implemented them but there isn't more than one implementation
evanpro: web annotations are hoping to move to PR by feb 24th, and they can't do so unless activitystreams is out of PR
<tantek> no they need to move to REC
evanpro: so there is some schedule pressure on us to advance this, and we won't have another telcon before their deadline
<tantek> and they need AS2 to be in PR
sandro: i think i may have slightly overstated the case
... they can proceed as long as we give them strong assurances that we are moving forward and the thing sthey rely on will move forward
<tantek> also, do the [x]s mean *both* publishing and consuming?
evanpro: my main concern is i don't want to leave this open forever. i would like to work quickly to receive implementation reports from activitypub and web annotation implementations to show that we meet the threshold for the properties they depend on
cwebber: i can get you a report by the end of the week
sandro: we can do it without a meeting, or we could hold another meeting
cwebber: is it possible to vote for PR with a window to add the extra terms assuming we get the reports by X date?
sandro: i think we need to be a little more explicit
tantek: the one question i wanted to ask is i can't tell if the green X's mean publishing or consuming or both and i find that pretty concerning
... for example if there's a property with a lot of publishers but no consumers, i would still consider that unimplemented
cwebber: that's more of an activitypub thing, it seems like more of an api question
tantek: i totally disagree
... for testing activitystreams, as we discussed before, for something to count, a consumer has to do something interesting rathre than just parse it and do a syntax transformation
sandro: the line you're making makes sense to me, but to my memory we didn't say this before
<tantek> we explicitly made this in the criteria
evanpro: i'm pulling up the AS spec, we have acceptance criteria and it does require publishers and consumers
<tantek> and the consumers can't just be syntax transformers
evanpro: so tantek is absolutely right
<julien> (call dropped)
sandro: (reading the exit criteria)
<bengo> AFAICS exit criteria doesn't mention consumer/producer
cwebber: what i'm worried about is if we require this do we have to redo all implementation reports?
<tantek> I'm pretty surprised people don't remember this
<tantek> we debated this a lot
ben_thatmustbeme: : there was a field in the implementation report to indicate this, they don't split it by term but it's for the overall implementation
<tantek> and made it very clear the importance of both publishing and consuming
<rhiaro> yeah can do
<aaronpk> i definitely remember this discussion and that's why it's taken me so long to build the test suites and reports because i'm specifically testing both sides
<sandro> +1 rhiaro
rhiaro: everyone has used a different syntax to indicate publisher/consumer, but yeah i can do it by next week
<tantek> similarly for any API features, need both client and server support
<tantek> can we provide guidance for consistent syntax?
<tantek> to indicate publisher and consumer?
<ben_thatmustbeme> rhiaro, it should be just pulling the 'Application Role: ' line, which seems to be common
<rhiaro> okay ben_thatmustbeme, probably straightforward
evanpro: we need to document that we have publishers and consumers on each side of the equation. we should have at least a yellow marking around the ones that are published but not consumed, etc. even if there are multiple publishers.
<tantek> also, I'd say 2+ consumers per property should be required, otherwise we're just testing a monoculture (whether you can publish to *one* implementation that consumes it) which is also not a standard
evanpro: web annotations was useful that they used AS2 over something else and i'd liek to be helpful in any way i can
sandro: we also did resolve to go to PR in feb, so i like the idea of sticking with what we commit to
tantek: we didn't resolve to, but that was our plan
... that was a "when do you think we can get to PR" not a specific resolution
sandro: i'm wondering about having a meeting in 2 weeks with the goal to go to PR then
evanpro: that sounds great
<tantek> I am available to meet on the 28th
<cwebber> +1 on meeting for two weeks
<ben_thatmustbeme> I would not that changeing those X's to P's would effect some of that list
tantek: strawpoll proposal for a meeting on the 28th same time
<rhiaro> I'll probably not be available
<rhiaro> in transit
<tantek> rhiaro: as long as you can have updated that script or have someway for sandro to update it?
<rhiaro> shouldn't be a problem
RESOLUTION: telcon on feb 28th at 11am eastern
tantek: the requirements that we're putting in place for AS2 is that the summary indicates whether each term is published or consumed, and that we get impelmentation reports from the annotations folks with that level of detail
... let's give them the deadline of the monday the 27th
sandro: as soon as amy updates the list we can say what things are safe and not safe
tantek: the other thing i wantedf to call out, is we should be requiring 2+ publishers and consumers
sandro: that's not what we said in the exit criteria
tantek: it's clear we didn't reflect all the details in the exit criteria that we agreed on the group
... the point is if you only have one implementation then you don't really have a standard. i would have a hard time saying that's vetted by implementations
evanpro: i'd like to propose we see where we are at the next meeting and decide then
sandro: we haven't yet solved what web annotations needs today
tantek: we need implementation reports from them
evanpro: i don't understand what they want today
<bengo> They want to know by 08:00 UTC Wednesday that AS2 will definitely reach PR and contain the terms they depend on
<bengo> They'd really like a transition request by the 21st. Is this possible?
tantek: we can tell them that we're not making a decision about taking off the properties until they send us implementation reports
evanpro: i don't think we're making assurances that the properties they need are part of the spec. however we can make the assurance that if there are properties they need that are in the spec that have implementation reports that that will be part of the spec.
<rhiaro> That seems okay to me
sandro: that makes sense
<tantek> all I was trying to say is we don't kick anything out for the next two weeks
<tantek> indepedent of annotations needs etc.
<rhiaro> we should vote on that..
<bengo> we should vote on that
<sandro> PROPOSED: We will retain, unchanged, in AS2 everything for which we get 2+ implementations reports (possibly setting the bar at 2+ producers and 2+consumers)
<sandro> (and expect to recqure PR at Feb 28 meeting)
<tantek> +1 with requiring the 2+ c & p bar
<sandro> (and expect to request PR at Feb 28 meeting)
<rhiaro> +1, minus moving the bar
<cwebber> 0: I feel like there's a new requirement thrown in that wasn't here before
<tantek> rhiaro: I'm also minus on moving the bar, to less than 2 impls
<cwebber> then +1
<sandro> sandro: We not saying we WILL move the goalposts, just acknowledging that we MIGHT
<tantek> exactly what evan just said
<cwebber> fair enuf
evanpro: this isn't necessarily moving the goalposts. we may have resolutions not reflected in the exit criteria, so that would be the communication issue here
RESOLUTION: We will retain, unchanged, in AS2 everything for which we get 2+ implementations reports (possibly setting the bar at 2+ producers and 2+consumers)
<julien> I don;t think that's enough for websub
<aaronpk> agreed julien
csarven: we have 6 implementations of receivers. i haven't reached out to get implementation reports of senders yet.
... the spec is current, we basically just added editorial changes
... the editor's draft is up to date
... from now until when we propose PR, we have to get 2+ implementation reports
tantek: so to be clea,r there are no new issues that require the groups attention and no normative changes?
... we have one issue that's been waiting for commenter for ages
tantek: we'll process that when we exit
... sounds like LDN is in good shape
... we're waiting for reports from senders. so maybe we can get those in the next 2 weeks
csarven: is there a deadline for when we have to berequesting PR?
tantek: before the charter extension expires
... so we can work backwards from there
csarven: can we publish a new CR? the last one was in november.
tantek: are there normative changes?
tantek: then i would recommend not doing that since it would reset the clock. i would recommend putting the editorial changes in PR.
sandro: i believe we can publish a new CR without restarting the clock as long as there are no normative changes
tantek: okay then let's go for it
<rhiaro> The process was recently clarified on that, we can publish editorial changes without restarting the process
<tantek> rhiaro that process doesn't take effect until March 1
PROPOSED: publish a new CR of LDN with editorial changes assuming it does not restart the CR clock
RESOLUTION: publish a new CR of LDN with editorial changes assuming it does not restart the CR clock
<tantek> resolves 13 16 18
<julien> can we put websub first in 2 weeks?
<ben_thatmustbeme> i wonder if we can bring up f2f in last few minutes
<julien> I'll do a write up to the ML later today
<julien> about the websub issues
<rhiaro> from plh about process: Besides updating the transition requirements to accommodate Process 2017, I also updated them to make sure we're applying Process 2015 correctly.
<rhiaro> 1. Updating a Candidate Recommendation with only editorial changes: See https://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=https://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions2017.html&xslfile=https://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions2017.xsl&docstatus=cr-editorial-tr Note that your publication request must assert that changes are only editorial.
<sandro> +1 extended meeting in 2 weeks, Feb 28 2 hours
PROPOSED: extend Feb 28th telcon to 2 hours
<rhiaro> +0 regrets
<cwebber> strong interest
<cwebber> in f2f
<julien> SF? Boston?
<sandro> +0 if it's boston, not likely to travel for this
tantek: sandro can i ask you to put together a doodle poll for getting interest in locations and dates for an april f2f?
<cwebber> early april would be bets
<cwebber> because I'll already be in Boston on March 25-26
<cwebber> and I could just stick around if it's super early
RESOLUTION: extend Feb 28th telcon to 2 hours
<annbass> thanks all..
tantek: keep an eye out for sandro's poll, and otherwise everyone get back to implementing! thanks everyone.
trackbot: end meeting
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
- approve minutes from Dec 6, Dec 13, and Jan 10
- the new telcon time is the time of this call
- our next telcon will be March 14th 11am Eastern time
- telcon on feb 28th at 11am eastern
- We will retain, unchanged, in AS2 everything for which we get 2+ implementations reports (possibly setting the bar at 2+ producers and 2+consumers)
- publish a new CR of LDN with editorial changes assuming it does not restart the CR clock
- extend Feb 28th telcon to 2 hours
[End of minutes]