From W3C Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

31 Oct 2017


rhiaro, aaronpk, eprodrom, ajordan, cwebber, sandro, tantek

<cwebber2> oh I should dial in eh

<cwebber2> I'll be on in 2min

<scribe> scribenick: rhiaro

<ajordan> IRC only for a bit

<eprodrom> ajordan, watch for the vote!

<ajordan> eprodrom: of course :)

roll up roll up, SWWG meeting starting in T-3 minutes

<eprodrom> sandro, are you joining us?

<sandro> yes sorry

<eprodrom> scribenick: rhiaro

<eprodrom> chairnick: eprodrom

<ajordan> .

approval of minutes 2017-10-24

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve as minutes for 24 Oct 2017 meeting

<rhiaro> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<sandro> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<ajordan> +1

<aaronpk> +1

RESOLUTION: approve as minutes for 24 Oct 2017 meeting


eprodrom: cwebber2, get us started?

cwebber2: sandro put together a diff of changes since the last CR



<Loqi> [Christopher Allan Webber] ActivityPub

<Loqi> [Christopher Allan Webber] ActivityPub

cwebber2: amy put together the changelog
... the changes are non normative
... we do have one .. the most major is the dropping mediaupload stuff
... but that was marked at risk
... so that's not a surprise I think

<tantek> That counts as a normative change, but we don't have to restart CR because it was marked at risk.

cwebber2: aside from that, we also moved the auth stuff off-spec

<ajordan> question: I spotted a "(Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.)" changed to "(Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet)." (note the period)

<ajordan> that seems like a typo but was it intentional?

cwebber2: everything else was things that were pretty minor


cwebber2: we had a few issues, they're all non substantive
... one I didn't do this morning so it's not in the diff, but I'd like to get it approved


cwebber2: the likes collection wasn't listed as a property, but is part of the spec
... I'm going to add that there, I wanted the group to see it before I did it
... The other two remaining open issues


<Loqi> [jaywink] #203 Linked Data Signatures + public key URI

cwebber2: One is not really affecting things in the spec
... Just so everyone knows, this has already been handled, I left it open because we had agreed I'd make specific changes to the wiki page in the CG, so I left it open to remind myself


<Loqi> [yvolk] #260 Relation between Actors and Users of servers is undefined

cwebber2: The only one left is this long one..
... amy and I spent a substantial amount of time. We talked about it a few weeks ago
... We resolved that we would clarify that there's not specific mapping of one user to one actor in the spec and wouldn't do anything further
... I thougtht hat was going to be it, but the commenter was not satisfied
... there's been much further conversation about needing to explain very carefully this concept of 'account' and we spent a lot of itme trying to figure out what they meant
... even within the last couple of changes amy and I got in a clear exlpanation that's non-normative that explains how accounts are actors, and can be humans or bots etc. I hoep that satisfies them but I'm not sure
... This has gone on for only 50 messages and in circles for a while
... We did have a resolution that was incorporated
... I'd like to get some group.. if you haven't read it.. well... I think we've done the very best we can to try to capture everything this person has said without adding vocab. Even the commentor agrees on not adding vocab
... I'd like the group to approve we close this even if the commentor specifies they're not satisfied, because I don't thinkw e can do better at this point

tantek: the first question I would ask (I haven't read the issue since the additional messages) is there any way to distill what if any new information was added to the issue since we did a group resolution?
... I understand the points before, but I'm trying to understand if there's new information subsequently

cwebber2: it switched from talking about users to talkinga bout accounts
... there was a lot more clarificationa bout why they thought this was really important
... I feel like a lot of it went to discusisng about how accounts in the system are really important to have the domain modelling of, and they also feel that this in some way not specifying is missing

rhiaro: Agree with chris. A lot of the comments are rephrasing the same information for clarity. A lot belongs in the CG, and the commentor agreed on some of that too

tantek: the reason I ask a question like that is at some point if we're not getting new information we can resolve it in the group and we can note that if it appears the commentor is not satisfied
... it should be okay if we've done our due diligence
... that being said, my understanding is we don't have anything about account management in any of our specs as far as I know, si that correct?
... by account management I mean creating an account, setting your background image, setting up email, etc. We don't model any of that do we?

cwebber2: we don't, aside from the most basic detail like your name

tantek: we have name and image, but that's it. That's abou tthe actor not about the account, I would argue
... the way that I would try to resolve this in a productive fashion is saying account management is important and we don't have it in the current spec, it would be a great extension
... please help us do that in the CG

eprodrom: since we moved auth to the CG, that is where account interaction would normally live, so that's something more CG oriented
... that might be what satisfies the commentor

rhiaro: we already said in the spec that this stuff is important and should be discussed as an extension in the CG

cwebber2: we could resolve that we've done what we can with this and move oveflow to the CG and ask the commentor if they're satisfied and mark it one way or the other

<cwebber2> PROPOSED: Resolve issue #260 as having completed relevant changes to ActivityPub itself, and move additional modeling decisions to SocialCG

<eprodrom> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<sandro> +1

<ajordan> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<tantek> +1

<rhiaro> but did y'all *read* the relevant changes? :)

<ajordan> I believe I did

<tantek> thought we already did them? like they're not new

<aaronpk> the changes were basically s/user/account right?

<rhiaro> thanks ajordan, appreciated :)

<rhiaro> tantek: we did a bit more, in notes

<ajordan> :)

<aaronpk> +1

RESOLUTION: Resolve issue #260 as having completed relevant changes to ActivityPub itself, and move additional modeling decisions to SocialCG

<tantek> I trust editor's discretion in notes

<ajordan> I might not have seen the notes, not sure

<tantek> just as additional info for that issue, note the Account Management issues (partially) documented for Twitter that are likely worth modeling

cwebber2: So the signatures one is not one that touches the spec, and 260, 266 is the only change we'd make since the diff in terms of issuing a new CR
... I'd like to propose we publish a new CR with changes from 266

<cwebber2> PROPOSED: Issue new CR of ActivityPub incorporating change proposed in issue #266

<cwebber2> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<ajordan> +1

<sandro> +1 understanding changes are editorial

<aaronpk> +1

<tantek> +1

eprodrom: any more votes?

RESOLUTION: Issue new CR of ActivityPub incorporating change proposed in issue #266

<tantek> these are good clarifications

eprodrom: this meeting was really for getting this CR out so I think we are ..


eprodrom: voting deadline is extended to 12 Nov, remind your AC reps


tantek: anyone going?

sandro: looks like I am

eprodrom: wrapping up. Thanks everyone!

cwebber2: one last thing
... would anybody object if I put down amy as an author on the spec?

<eprodrom> cwebber2 that sounds fine

cwebber2: she's done a tremendous amoutn of work refactoring last year and in closing issues etc, I feel like it's been enough

<tantek> No objection

<sandro> +1 rhiaro !

eprodrom: unless there are any objections, chris do that
... NOW i'm gonna end the meeting

tantek: see you at tpac

<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approve as minutes for 24 Oct 2017 meeting
  2. Resolve issue #260 as having completed relevant changes to ActivityPub itself, and move additional modeling decisions to SocialCG
  3. Issue new CR of ActivityPub incorporating change proposed in issue #266