Social Web Working Group Teleconference
14 Mar 2017
See also: IRC log
- aaronpk, julien, eprodrom, csarven, tantek, ben_thatmustbeme, bengo, cwebber, sandro, wilkie, rhiaro
- eprodrom, tantek
- csarven, ben_thatmustbeme
<eprodrom> We need a scribe?
<tantek> last week's minutes btw: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-02-28-minutes
<ben_thatmustbeme> i scribed last meeting
<aaronpk> lol Zakim
<ben_thatmustbeme> i'll scribe again if needed
<eprodrom> scribenick; csarven
<eprodrom> scribenick: csarven
I don't remember commands.. so I just type stuff right?
<rhiaro> scribe: csarven
eprodrom: First item is review our minutes
eprodrom: Please quickly review
<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-02-28-minutes as minutes for 2017-02-28 telecon
RESOLUTION: accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-02-28-minutes as minutes for 2017-02-28 telecon
eprodrom: First agenda item: discuss monthly call
... possibilities.. March 28 and another on APril 11
<sandro> +1 biweekly
eprodrom: uhhmm it feels like we have a lot of stuff..
<aaronpk> +1 for every two weeks
<cwebber> +1 on biweekly
<tantek> +1 for 2017-03-28 and 2017-04-11, to be evaluated at 2017-04-11
<julien> +1 for biweekly
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: schedule telecons for 2017-03-28 and 2017-04-11
eprodrom: if we are okay I'd like to propose schedule telcon for ...
<rhiaro> +1 but not sure if I'll be available on 28th
<tantek> (I'm not sure we're going to be as busy after the next two telcons including this one)
I can't make it
<tantek> (we can re-evaluate on 2017-04-11 accordingly)
Probably in flight at that time.
RESOLUTION: schedule telecons for 2017-03-28 and 2017-04-11
<tantek> csarven both telcons?
ops .. sorry the first .
<cwebber> I can't make the 28th
+1 to 2017-04-11
<cwebber> well maybe I can
<cwebber> but it will be hard
<cwebber> how about, I will *try to* make the 28th :)
<tantek> (honestly I'm hoping we make good progress with Websub on the 28th)
eprodrom: If you have strong opinions about the agenda please say ahead of time.
... if you prefer that we continue with the meetings w/o you being there, that's okay too.
<rhiaro> and rhiaro
<rhiaro> but I don't object :)
No strong objections. Please go ahead
<cwebber> no objections
sandro: Assumed that we won't do the F2F based on last meeting
<rhiaro> Maybe we just have a post-WG party in June
eprodrom: How about a new doodle for May?
... Hopefully by May we are past the point of meetings.. nothing substantive.
eprodrom: Okie dokie
<tantek> possibly WG->CG transition?
sandro: We could do over the phone
tantek: One thing to use the meeting for that could be productive... wrap up the WG stuff and official kickoff for the CG
... ... here is some stuff for the CG. Get people excited... Invite folks beyond the WG. thinking out loud
... ... to keep the momentum going especially when we close the WG
eprodrom: Open to it.. I have two questions.
... what do we need to make it worthwhile.
... can we get it for April or May?
tantek: May is logical time to do that.
<eprodrom> # of people necessary
<rhiaro> I can make it if it's in Europe between the 18th and 27th of May
tantek: As sandro said.. probably not much/likely to do at that point.
... It'll be good to have an answer to where things can go
... Especially for those that haven't been engaged with the WG
sandro: Can we move this discussion to the CG?
eprodrom: Do we have a wrap-up for us to do?
<tantek> ok with that
sandro: I don' thtink we need that IRL wrap-up
eprodrom: I love voting
<tantek> ok with what sandro was saying
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: No further F2Fs for WG; any future F2Fs under umbrella of CG
<tantek> +1 I'm swayed by sandro's reasoning
eprodrom: Let's take this off our agenda and move it to CG's
<KevinMarks> I should be able to make this better, but currently not good broadband for calling in
<tantek> note to CG co-chairs, you can also plan to ask for f2f time during TPAC
RESOLUTION: No further F2Fs for WG; any future F2Fs under umbrella of CG
eprodrom: 20mins for admin \o/
... Topic LDN
<KevinMarks> (I'm in sunny Yorkshire)
<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
<tantek> thanks ben_thatmustbeme
<rhiaro> listed all relevant links on agenda for LDN: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-03-14#Topics
csarven: we're at a point where we only have editorial changes, we have a summary link for all 3 new reports we've collected, there are at least 2+ implmeentations per type of implementation
<sandro> cwebber, aaronpk, TPAC is near SFO, Nov 6-10
<tantek> https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/tests/summary looks really good!
<eprodrom> Yeah, wow!
csarven: (reviews stats for inside / outside of WG implementations, scribe missed the exact numbers)
... we have a few more implementation reports in the works
sandro: looking at the implementation matrix looks great
... there are 3 tests that do not appear widely implemented, are those optional?
... PRCU, GLCG, and GNL
<rhiaro> but yeah they're all optional
<rhiaro> all MUSTs are all green
csarven: when its marked as inapplicable, there is no information for it, we are updating as we find out. if its inapplicable, they are not expected to implment that
sandro: so that sideways L symbol means this is the kind of implementation that isn't expected to do that, is that correct?
csarven: they may be processing it, but are not giving that information back out
sandro: not sure i understand
<rhiaro> Note that using the test suite to send a report sends an LDN, and the report summary is an LDN consumer
tantek: in general this looks really good, aside from the axis flip which confused me too, is there some way we can indicate which features are optional vs MUST?
... the second question, is it possible to indicate in the rows which were written by editor(s), inside the WG, and outside the WG
... i found that really useful to show how much support we have outside the WG
... it makes LDN look even stronger
... that way as we take it to PR, etc, it will be beneficial
csarven: we can certainly group them, and mention it in the reports themselves
... regarding the axis flip this is the "correct" way to show the data
... that's convention
tantek: to be clear, i wasn't asking for the axis to be flipped, it's just different from the way i saw on others
... your reasoning makes sense
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask two questions 1. how can we tell from the test tables which feature columns are optional, and 2. how can we tell from the test tables which implementation
csarven: for marking optional vs required, we could do that, part of the test was to catch the most common things people are doing. as there are no fails right now. I could mark the things that are optional on the columns possibly
tantek: that would be great
csarven: minor note, the reports are submitted as an LDN, when the reports are created, its sent to the summary as an LDN,
... so the summary itself is a conforming LDN
... and there is rdfa on these too which, maybe someone will use in the future
... i think that we are fairly stable with the reports and the spec
eprodrom: i have a question, about activitypub and LDN. one of the goals of having LDN in this group was to have the distribution mechanism for AP. I don't know that any of these are also AP implementations. I'm sort of concerned about going to PR without having an AP implementation using it. I know thats unfortunate coupling, but i wanted to ask cwebber about that
<rhiaro> I believe bengo's is AP or nearly AP too
<tantek> I for one don't want to block LDN PR on asking for more AP implementation
cwebber: i'm pretty sure that rhiaro was able to make her implementation use them. I could probably make my implementation do that. We specify it in the spec of how they are similar, but we don't demonstrate that outside of amy's impl.
eprodrom: certainly .....
<csarven> bengo's is AP as well
<bengo> true story
rhiaro: my implementation is AP and LDN compatible, it's slightly broken currently, and i think bengo is using both as well
<tantek> The strong interop documented by the tables demonstrates there's sufficient critical mass / implementation testing of the spec IMO
eprodrom: if that's the case then i feel comfortable, then i want to go forward with it, but go forward with eyes open that we have light implementation of the two of them together. But i think it will be beneficial to AP to have a distribution mechanism at PR
<sandro> rhiaro: Anything that's in gray is because it's an optional feature. Failed mandatory would be red.
rhiaro: i just wanted to discuss required vs optional. There would be red boxes if there were any failed required results. the grey boxes are failed by optional
tantek: that's not the exact meaning i've seen in other groups.
rhiaro: they are MUST IF's so each of those
tantek: if i were looking at this naively, which i somewhat am, i would assume that inapplicable means that those don't apply to those classes of implementations, not optional
<sandro> Just move all those columns to the right hand side, under a super-heading "OPTIONAL"
csarven: we borrowed the test outcomes from the w3c's EARL, which used those values
<tantek> I don't doubt that the db schema behind this has been reasoned out, I'm talking purely about the presentation
<tantek> If it was enough to confuse me and sandro, then it will likely confuse various AC reps ;)
csarven: the other thing is that the reports that made it through are the ones that are passing. I know that many of them did have failing during some of these, but they submitted the reports once they were cleared up
tantek: there is no question of that, this is about presentation, we trust what you did, but it's about making it more presentable to those outside the group
<tantek> rhiaro, yes, and I for one trust you and csarven to figure out such details
csarven: we'll clear it up
<tantek> thank you csarven
eprodrom: i want to make sure that given that you have limited time, we get any process stuff done
... okay i just cleared the queue, good for me :)
rhiaro: before we go to PR, we'd like to publish an updated CR with editorial changes
tantek: we don't need to do an updated CR for changes that are clearly editorial
<tantek> I for one am +1 on taking to PR pending editorial edits and presentational update to the implementation report
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: request transition of LDN to PR
eprodrom: okay, if we don't need to do that then i'm going to make the proposal for transition without qualification ...
<tantek> +1 with editorial edits as requested by editors and presentational update to the implementation report to clarify MUST vs optional features, and clustering of implementations as editor, wg, outside wg.
sandro: i'm looking at the closed issues, and I am seeing a number that are still 'waiting for commentor' and i want to make sure that those are changed to 'timeout' and we have made a good effort to contact them
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: request transition of LDN to PR with editorial updates
sandro: oh the latest one is sept 2nd, so we can definitely count those as timeout
<tantek> +1 with presentational update to the implementation report to clarify MUST vs optional features, and clustering of implementations as editor, wg, outside wg.
sandro: those changes being the acknowledgement sections
eprodrom: if you have a -1 to throw in, do it now
RESOLUTION: request transition of LDN to PR with editorial updates
eprodrom: or say you need more time
<sandro> congratulations, csarven and rhiaro !
<tantek> congrats csarven and rhiaro!
<aaronpk> we need a soundtrack when things like this are approved
<tantek> also thanks sandro for requesting clarifications on waiting for commenter issues
<csarven> Thanks all!
eprodrom: thank you sarven for hanging on some extra time
... any extra discussion around LDN before we move on?
<csarven> Still around.. just with added 3 year old background-stuff
eprodrom: anything else we wanted to cover?
sandro: i think we are good
eprodrom: we need to get some updates about the test suite
tantek: last week we screwed up a little bit, we did not verify that we had complete client tests before we took it to PR
... despite the vote for going to PR, we didn't meet our standards for PR
aaronpk: since last call i worked really hard on adding client tests and now there are complete tests for client features on the site. and as you go through client tests on the site, it checks off the pieces in the report for you and gives you the text to insert into your report. this allows people to still submit manually if they want and the format didn't need to change at all
<tantek> basically, do we now meet our standards for PR for micropub? and if so, we should re PROPOSED and re RESOLVED accordingly
aaronpk: i have seen people using it, but no one has submitted a report using the tests yet as most submitted them by hand before that
sandro: have you been in contact with people to get a clue as to when they might do that?
aaronpk: i have talked to a couple people but i haven't heard back yet on when
<tantek> I think that was from before?
eprodrom: i guess i'm a little bit confused on where we are, we voted to go to PR, there was some concern about client tests, what actionable for the group now?
... do we need to reel back in our proposal?
tantek: we did reel it back last week, since then we have fixed the missing implementation reports, i think what sandro was asking is do we have new reports since launching the client tests.
aaronpk: we have not, mine did not change with the new tests, so the report is still the same
tantek: so have we heard of any changed reports since?
sandro: looks like shpub and micropublish are the two most complete besides yours, if we reached out to them and asked, that would be a good confirmation to me
tantek: we could go with a proposal conditional that their clients return the same results with the test, that way we can move on automatically, if not then we have to reaccess it
eprodrom: i feel like if we are going to be meeting again in a few weeks, then the 28th would be a good time to go to PR
tantek: ideally it should be simply a matter of a few days, not two weeks
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: requesting advancement of Micropub to PR conditioned on ...
eprodrom: it sounds like we have something along the (typing out proposal)
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: requesting advancement of Micropub to PR conditioned on confirmation of client implementations
sandro: i'm trying to figure out where the bar is here
... the strictest would be throw out all the ..
sandro: i'm trying to figure out where else is rational to set the bar at
tantek: it seems reasonable to me
sandro: if you pitch it to them that it fills out everything for them
<tantek> +1 with sandro's details of how to confirm client implementations
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: requesting advancement of Micropub to PR conditioned on confirmation of client implementations
ben_thatmustbeme: so are we throwing out all the implementation reports?
sandro: i think we are going with just shpub and micropublish in addition to aaronpk's implementation, and if there are any other issues with the test suite
... i picked those two because they cover most of it
tantek: yes, i think those are good canaries
<sandro> PROPOSED: Request Micropub -> PR when new complete test suite is reported passed by impls from editor, shpub, micropublish, and no one else reports problems
<sandro> (and reasonable effort is made to contact them)
sandro: can we extend the meeting a bit?
<cwebber> I can give a 2 minute AP update
<tantek> +1 ok with extending meeting 30 min (not expecting it to take that long)
eprodrom: we have a lot to cover still
RESOLUTION: Request Micropub -> PR when new complete test suite is reported passed by impls from editor, shpub, micropublish, and no one else reports problems
<cwebber> I could do a meeting next week
<tantek> congrats aaronpk on getting (re)resolved to take Micropub to PR!
<cwebber> no objections
<julien> For websub, I sent an email earlier today which we can maybe use as a basis for discussion over email? and I am ok to continue either way
<eprodrom> 15 minutes extension
<sandro> eprodrom: meeting extended 15 min
eprodrom: if there are no objections, i am going to unilaterally extend by 15 minutes
tantek: we resolved to take AS2 to PR 2 weeks ago, that was pending a draft update that would remove the set up features we did not have implmntations on, but they are all marked optional at risk
eprodrom: that updated draft is not ready but i should have something by the end of the week
... the normative change was to remove those at-risk features that were lacking implementations.
... the editorial was remove the 'at-risk' labels, and archive exit criteria and changelog
... so next steps?
tantek: we already resolved that, so we just need it to be updated, and that will get it to transition and published by next week
sandro: it depends on a couple people, if you get it to me by thursday, we should be able to publish by tuesday
tantek: if we get all our ducks in a row too, we could probably do LDN too
... so we are aiming for tuesday for all 3 of these PRs
<rhiaro> the race is on
tantek: and we are not going to be holding any up, get your work done or you miss the tuesday train
... i'm assuming we haven't seen any new AS2 issues come up
eprodrom: yes, only editorial
<tantek> chair: eprodrom
tantek: it's not a huge deal if one misses it, but it would be nice to get all our PRs together
<cwebber> AP will be very short
eprodrom: websub looks long, i wonder if we can postpone until next meeting?
<julien> +1 (but read the mail I sent earlier today)
<cwebber> that's fine
<tantek> link to that email?
<julien> +1 sandro!
sandro: there was an email this morning that people should read and respond to
<tantek> we really should put WebSub first (non-admin) then for the 2017-03-28
<julien> looking forzward [sic] to see responses ;)
<tantek> julien hoping you can make it on 2017-03-28!
cwebber: in short, i did merge bengo's implementation report template, i went through it and everything looks good, there is one small unresolved thing at the bottom i need to take care of. I hoped to get the test suite by this call, but It has not happened. I have been working on it, but it is very complex and i have been a bit burned out. We have an implementation report but i should probably advertise that a bit better
tantek: can i get a quick few minutes on the CG issue
<sandro> I also think it's dead
tantek: i noticed that there was some spam coming in from W3C Social Business Community Group, it looks to be dead
can we request w3c close it and direct people to the new CG
eprodrom: sounds good, can you phrase it as a proposal?
<tantek> PROPOSED: request that W3C Social Business Community Group be closed with a message inviting anyone there to join the W3C Social Web Community Group
<ben_thatmustbeme> there are tons of dead CGs so the more dead ones closed, the better
sandro: i'll try to reach out to the chair too, but it sure looks like the group is dead
RESOLUTION: request that W3C Social Business Community Group be closed with a message inviting anyone there to join the W3C Social Web Community Group
tantek: and make it clear that if they do have stuff to work on they can do that in the social web CG
<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
- accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-02-28-minutes as minutes for 2017-02-28 telecon
- schedule telecons for 2017-03-28 and 2017-04-11
- No further F2Fs for WG; any future F2Fs under umbrella of CG
- request transition of LDN to PR with editorial updates
- Request Micropub -> PR when new complete test suite is reported passed by impls from editor, shpub, micropublish, and no one else reports problems
- request that W3C Social Business Community Group be closed with a message inviting anyone there to join the W3C Social Web Community Group