#[tantek]^ I've seen a few people do that, use their domain for their template rather than their chatname. Is it something we should encourage or discourage?
#M0x3b0b[m]Hmm. Didn't even occur to me until you commented that I wasn't being consistent with the provided examples. The instructions say to "replace 'yourname' with your name or screen name", and I think my brain just subconsciously translated "screen name" to "username." Otherwise I probably would have spent at least half an hour trying to decide what I wanted to use.
#[tantek]M0x3b0b[m], you already decided to use "M0x3b0b" as your screen name here in chat and perhaps that’s what’s unclear. We should say "chatname" and link it to make it unambiguous
#GWG[tantek]: Going to make an appearance tonight?
#M0x3b0b[m][tantek]: Okay, if that's the intent, then yes, I'd say that's what I found unclear. Step Three is to add myself to chat-names, and Step Four is to set up the sparkline template...er...thing, but I didn't pick up on a connection between the two. My chat name is arguably more likely to change than any other relevant handles, because I might eventually decide the disadvantages that come from which bridge I'm talking through (such as
#M0x3b0b[m]the added "M...[m]") outweigh the satisfaction of using my own Matrix homeserver, but I do want to follow convention, so I'll go take a gander. Thanks. [Tantek]++
#Loqi[Tantek] has 17 karma in this channel over the last year (76 in all channels)
#M0x3b0b[m]<[tantek]> "by convention we tend to drop..." <- I was noticing that the [m] seems to keep the template from parsing. The chat names page says slack users should check the chat logs for the IRC version of their names, and I assumed that would also apply to Matrix, hence `M0x3b0b[m]` instead of `0x3b0b`, since not only am I coming from Matrix but IRC names can't start with a digit. So now I'm even less confident in where my template
#M0x3b0b[m]should be and I have a suspicion I've done my chatname wrong...someday maybe I'll stop making things unnecessarily difficult. I doubt it.
#tantek.comedited /Twitter (+457) "screenshot of today’s outage, subheads since section is so long now" (view diff)
#[tantek]your /chatnames entry should be what it shows up in IRC but without network suffixes or brackets
#Loqi[preview] [M0x3b0b[m]] ...maybe. Let me investigate.
#M0x3b0b[m]I'd assume that's because I removed the `[m]` from my entry in the chat names page. The trick I'd missed is that I can actually also tell the bridge service bot what nick to use for me on the IRC bridge, separate from tweaking my Matrix display name. So I could replace that leading M with...something else valid. Like "bw3" or an underscore or something. Or even just go by "bw3" on IRC. The question, of course, is whether I want to.
mro, mambang, mro_, [Rick] and sp1ff joined the channel
#aaronpkinteresting new trademark policy from mastodon, updated last week. now explicitly prohibits you from using "mastodon" or similar looking words in instance domain names https://www.joinmastodon.org/sl/trademark
#Loqi[preview] [[tantek]] aaronpk, re: "way more opinions about the UX and UI of social media apps now" well it's good thing we focused on UX first and protocols second in this community then isn't it? And we captured plenty of screenshots of UX variants across silos and Indi...
#Loqi[preview] [[tantek]] There is no "social-media-pedia", indieweb.org is in effect the closest thing.
#[tantek]we already have good reasons to document social media sites for many IndieWeb use-cases, e.g. how to migrate from, how to POSSE to, how to export and leave etc., as well as UI/UX screenshots/patterns to consider as prior art when doing our own designs
#[tantek]what do folks think of making "in effect" be explicit as on topic for the wiki?
#[tantek]that is, if something is social media related either specific to a silo or in general, rather than trying to find which of many indieweb use-cases it fits in / overlaps with before documenting it on the appropriate wiki page, we explicitly say that in good faith if something is about or relevant to social media, it likely has some relevance, at least highly adjacent, to the IndieWeb, and thus is appropriate for the wiki?
#[KevinMarks]I think that makes sense for our wiki, as the socialwg one is a lot less maintained. It might be worth bringing some of those entries that assess different sites over
#[tantek]socialwg was much more focused on the specific chartered scope of socialwg, so that makes sense
#[tantek]and if a socialwg was restarted, it would have a different charter & scope accordingly, again for only a period of time (maybe 2 years, at least to start, perhaps longer with extensions)
#IWDiscordRelay<capjamesg#4492> Is there a world in which the WG would be rebooted?
#[tantek]capjamesg, there would have to be enough interest by W3C members to work on and put forth a new charter for a new WG
#[tantek]if we get rough consensus on this, seems like a good thing to "announce" in the new year
#aaronpki feel like some of the pages already do that somewhat, so it's not a huge leap
#[tantek]yeah, that was part of the point, to take what seems to be beneficial (at worst harmless) practices of contribution to the wiki and make it explicit accordingly
#tantek.comedited /relevant_to_the_IndieWeb_wiki (+430) "/* Expand silos to social media in general */ lower barrier to relevant contributions, less labor for community contributors, linky" (view diff)
gRegor and mro joined the channel
#gRegor[tantek] I'm not sure I fully understand the suggested change(s), but haven't really been following the conversation leading up to it
#[tantek]In particular: "After releasing a project snapshot known as _Atom 0.2_ in early July 2003, discussion was shifted off the wiki."
#[tantek]Even though I was around and following at the time, and I remember the Pie/Atom wiki being kind of a mess (much more so than IndieWeb), I don't remember the reasoning or process by which "discussion was shifted off the wiki" which makes me wonder if that’s a vulnerability (from a community perspective) that we should be aware of