#social 2015-02-20

2015-02-20 UTC
tantek, the_frey, bblfish, caseorganic, timbl, cwebber` and Arnaud joined the channel
#
Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Social API/User stories]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=81713&oldid=81712
#
Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Social API/More user stories]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=81714&oldid=0
#
tantek !tell AnnB I saw your comment earlier: http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-02-18#t1424295363634 Context: elf accused me of bias on two wiki pages e.g. https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg%2FSyntax_Comparison&action=historysubmit&diff=81548&oldid=77853 , without checking the existing given citations, and without bringing it up with me directly. Thus I brought it up directly with him instead.
#
Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
bblfish, ben_thatmustbeme and elf-pavlik joined the channel
#
tantek I'm a bit surprised that there are no user stories that mention "relationship" (e.g. status, changing of, approving of etc.). No mention of the word at all on the page.
#
tantek Which frankly feels very ironic for a "social" API.
#
tantek In contrast to - just because more than one person works on something (like a project), does not make that "social web" per se - or rather, that's a pretty twisted (and quite overly broad) use of "social web".
#
tantek E.g. "groupware" in general I think is out of scope for social web.
#
tantek and in fact, anyone here who wants to work on such things (two people working on a project, or "groupware" in general) should read this first: http://www.jwz.org/doc/groupware.html
#
tantek I do plan to -1 all groupware user stories accordingly.
jaywink joined the channel
#
tantek on a positive note, I created this page https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/More_user_stories to capture more user stoires (not part of vote/poll) if anyone thinks of more they feel strongly about adding
#
tantek e.g. user stories about "relationship" (e.g. status, changing of, approving of etc.).
bblfish joined the channel
#
elf-pavlik tantek++
#
Loqi tantek has 154 karma
pfefferle, elf-pavlik and caseorganic joined the channel
#
Loqi Pelf made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-03-17]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=81716&oldid=81545
bblfish, the_frey, bblfish_, Augier, caseorganic, pfefferle, timbl, elf-pavlik, Shane_, harry and Arnaud joined the channel
#
aaronpk groupware--
#
Loqi groupware has -1 karma
nicolagreco, shepazu_, timbl, tilgovi, tilgovi_, AnnB and tantek joined the channel
#
tantek groupware-- you said it aaronpk
#
Loqi groupware has -2 karma
nicolagreco joined the channel
#
Loqi Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-02-24]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=81732&oldid=81644
#
Loqi Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Social API/User stories]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=81733&oldid=81713
#
Loqi Eprodrom made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/Social API/User stories]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=81735&oldid=81733
#
tantek I noted before that I consider "groupware" to be related, but out of scope for "social web"
#
tantek Other things that are related, but IMO out of scope for social web: email, revision control systems, instant messaging
#
AnnB I agree, Tantek (about those examples being related but out of scope)
#
Loqi AnnB: tantek left you a message 12 hours, 36 minutes ago: I saw your comment earlier: http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-02-18#t1424295363634 Context: elf accused me of bias on two wiki pages e.g. https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg%2FSyntax_Comparison&action=historysubmit&diff=81548&oldid=77853 , without checking the existing given citations, and without bringing it up with me directly. Thus I brought it up directly with him instead.
#
AnnB well, thanks for that response, Tantek and Loqi
#
Loqi you're welcome
#
AnnB haha
#
AnnB actually, I saw it earlier by reading the log ... I appreciate that log
elf-pavlik joined the channel
#
tantek NP AnnB - right you saw the log, but you didn't see what happened before the log
#
tantek that's the context I'm providing
#
AnnB well, I read the convo in the log .. that's the extent of my info
Shane_ joined the channel
#
AnnB my reaction was more about the tone ...
#
tantek AnnB - I understand, and that's why I gave you the context BEFORE the convo in the log
#
AnnB I understand that you were frustrated that elf didn't know this and that
#
AnnB but *I* often don't know the deep history you know
#
AnnB none of us can
#
tantek Yet that's not the biggest problem
#
AnnB well, maybe
#
tantek The bigger problem was that instead of directly approaching me (e.g. here) about bias, he edited the wiki to basically make a personal attack there.
#
AnnB I would rather presume innocence
#
AnnB than malice
#
tantek That's passive aggressive behavior, and should have been direct contact instead, even in IRC here.
#
AnnB but nor do I want to go too far on dissecting what went on
#
tantek There's no dissection - they were just two edits to pages.
#
tantek edits to two pages
#
tantek then instead of responding in the same way, I directly confronted elf about it, which is better conflict managment
#
AnnB <distracted for a sec by someone in Boeing>
#
AnnB <not trying to ignore you>
#
tantek I should have made the context (the accusatory wiki edits) more clear in my first communication on IRC.
#
elf-pavlik hello AnnB, hi tantek :)
#
tantek good day elf-pavlik!
#
elf-pavlik AnnB, I've seen just last log of last 10 min and will read more later
#
elf-pavlik going to cood diner now, but now bad feelings to tantek from my side!
#
tantek hopes that was "no bad" rather than "now bad" ;)
#
elf-pavlik s/now/no/
#
tantek ;)
#
elf-pavlik ;)
#
AnnB <phew; I was worried!>
#
tantek lol
#
elf-pavlik i made this edit in a rush and admited that could have done it in more raceful way
#
elf-pavlik s/raceful/graceful/
#
AnnB at the same time, I think Tantek, you came across as more defensive or <some adjective> than you realize
#
AnnB this is a hot button for you, and that shows
#
tantek elf-pavlik: I think it's better that if you (or anyone) thinks someone in particular is putting a (bad) bias on the wiki, to have that conversation at least in IRC directly, before making edits. Or at least a heads-up before such edits are made.
#
elf-pavlik needs to go cooking dinner, Open Data Day tomorrow and we do presentation based on our work on public transport in last 2 weeks...
#
tantek direct discussions are typically more productive than wiki edits from a distance
#
AnnB because I know you, I know you are more considerate than it appeared
#
tantek AnnB - I think *frustrated* is the adjective you're looking for
#
AnnB true, but what if the other person isn't on at the same time?
#
AnnB hard to have direct discussion
#
tantek AnnB, that's what Loqi !tell is for!
#
tantek AnnB, nah, in practice that's not a problem
#
elf-pavlik tantek, will keep in in mind, i tend to let myself make 'mistake' and recalibrate based on that, rather then freeze in loop of trying not to make a mistake :D
#
tantek as we've now demonstrated :)
#
AnnB I saw that Loqi command .. pleased to learn about it
#
tantek elf-pavlik: yes that makes sense.
#
tantek !tell AnnB I'll leave another message for you next time I don't see you here :)
#
Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
#
elf-pavlik now really needs to go!
#
AnnB regardless, if I didn't know you, and had some long amount of time with you, I would have had an even more concerned reaction ... just saying
#
Loqi AnnB: tantek left you a message 27 seconds ago: I'll leave another message for you next time I don't see you here :)
#
AnnB have good dinner, elf
#
elf-pavlik AnnB, thank you for caring about our relationships in a group on personal (human) level <3
#
elf-pavlik AnnB++
#
Loqi AnnB has 3 karma
#
elf-pavlik thank you :)
#
tantek AnnB - agreed. And frankly, it IS a concerning topic.
#
tantek so at least that's good that that aspect is conveyed.
#
AnnB I am very fond of Tantek, both for his passion and commitment and efforts to step up all of our game
#
AnnB and I anticipate being fond of elf, should we ever meet
#
AnnB it's very hard to have "difficult" convos at distance, separated by time, via electronic means ... gee, it's even hard in person!
#
AnnB so, my only point originally was to say that I was put off by the beginning tone ... albeit I knew a bit about the underlying issues
#
AnnB AND that few of us can ever be expected to have read enough to understand the depth of history that someone else has experienced ...
#
AnnB ... which then makes me worried about commenting, because, heck, I know I don't know enough
#
AnnB that's it
#
AnnB thanks to both of you
#
AnnB (and everyone else for enduring this discussion.... )
#
tantek AnnB - I'd rather have direct frank (even if disturbing / offputting) tone here in IRC, than passive edits (potentially back forth) on the wiki.
#
tantek The assumption is we want agreeable resolution quickly, rather than having disagreeements linger on the wiki or email permathreads.
#
tantek Speaking of which, I saw a comment by someone from the Annotation WG that they think there is some overlap with them and (some of) our user stories.
#
tantek Overlap in charters / use-cases is inevitable in as large a group as W3C.
#
tantek Thus I encourage a few things.
#
tantek 1. More liason with Annotation WG - anyone else interested? I at least lurk in their #annotation IRC channel and encourage others to do so.
#
tantek 2. Invite Annotation WG folks to participate as observers in our f2f
#
tantek 3. The race is on. Let's ship a simple minimal Social API quickly, before they ship theirs ;)
#
AnnB I just had a contact from Eric Stephan, who is AC rep from "Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ... and a member of the Data on the Web Working Group"
#
AnnB he has ideas about scientific collaboration .. I sugg he add any new User Stories to the new page you set up, if he thinks there are gaps
#
AnnB start with small bites we can "chew", then improve over time
#
tantek AnnB - capturing user stories is good. I'd be cautious about "collaboration" as that starts to sound like "groupware".
#
AnnB I don't know more; we'll see
#
tantek Also, going on a limb here, I'm willing to bet that *anything* collaboration related is going to be claimed by the Annotation folks as being forms of Annotation.
#
AnnB then we can distill as needed
#
tantek Perhaps this gets two birds with one stone
#
AnnB hmm .. we'll see on that, too
#
tantek let's give all the groupware user stories to annotation WG ;)
#
tantek And then we told them we'd give them all the groupware user stories.
#
shepazu_ wow...
#
shepazu (I'd like a chance to clear up some obvious misconceptions that Tantek has about the Web Annotation WG)
#
shepazu is concerned to hear a chair frame a discussion like that
#
tantek provides a URL for context: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Feb/0148.html and notes the ;)
#
tantek shepazu: is Robert Sanderson not part of Web Annotation WG, or does his email have obvious misconceptions about the Web Annotation WG?
#
shepazu the Web Annotation WG doesn't want to ship a social API, we want the Social Web WG to define one that also meets our use cases, so we don't have competing tech or overlap
#
shepazu tantek, you seem to be misreading his email
#
tantek shepazu: nope, you seem to have missed my #2 above: http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-02-20/line/1424458571495 which is exactly about such collaboration directly mentioned in the email.
#
shepazu I don't see how the statement "It would be great to work together on these rather than co-inventing separate solutions to the same problem at the same time in the same standards body" indicates a "race" to ship a Social API, it's clearly an attempt to work together
#
tantek hence the #2 point I made. and as I said, the ;) on the #3 re: race.
#
shepazu tantek, that paired with "let's give all the groupware user stories to annotation WG" doesn't give the impression of the kind of mutual respect I'd expect from a WG chair
#
tantek shepazu, are you saying there's something wrong with groupware stories? also you left out the ;) from your quote of my statement, which I'll gladly provide a permalink for to prove my point: http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-02-20/line/1424459336136 ;)
#
shepazu tantek, you obviously have a problem with "groupware"... [[I'd be cautious about "collaboration" as that starts to sound like "groupware".]]
#
shepazu adding a smiley doesn't mean that you don't mean what you said
#
tantek shepazu - yes the problems with groupware have also been cited: http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-02-19/line/1424416469742
#
shepazu in the words of They Might be Giants, you can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding
#
tantek au contraire, a smiley does change the meaning. citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon
#
shepazu tantek, to be clear, you intended those statements as irony or jokes, and you didn't mean them literally at all?
#
tantek the presence of a smiley does tend to reduce the chance someone meant something literally
#
shepazu that's not the question
#
shepazu you're making some fairly dismissive remarks about the Web Annotation WG, and that concerns me as the staff contact, since we're trying to work in good faith with the Social Web WG... if you don't take that coordination seriously, I'd prefer to know now
#
tantek once again refers to his #2 suggestion above. http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-02-20/line/1424458571495
#
tantek no need to keep dismissing my concrete coordination suggestions shepazu.
#
shepazu I see one positive statement, and several negative ones, it's hard to know which ones you mean
#
shepazu "Also, going on a limb here, I'm willing to bet that *anything* collaboration related is going to be claimed by the Annotation folks as being forms of Annotation."
#
tantek statements with fewer smileys tend to indicate more literal meanings
#
tantek as are statements with fewer caveats
#
shepazu none of this is reassuring
#
shepazu tantek, you may wish to be less ambiguous in your statements, since smileys can be a signal for "snide" as well as "just kidding". If you have concerns with the Web Annotation WG, then let's talk about them and see if they can be resolved. I am uncomfortable with a situation where one of the chairs of a group we're supposed to coordinate with might harbor hostile intentions toward our group
#
tantek nothing hostile being harbored. don't worry, no actual issues were created or harmed in the making of any smileys.
#
tantek I think I've been pretty repeatedly clear about what I am hostile toward: e.g. complexity, DRY violations, making publishers do more work than necessary, building (even prototyping) systems based or biased on a centralized architecture, talking/emailing without building/creating.
#
tantek though I prefer to focus on positive principles instead: minimalism, e.g. minimal markup of visible content, making things as predictably simple for publishers as possible, systems based or biased on distributed peer-to-peer architectures, basing proposals on selfdogfooding
#
tantek and as AnnB pointed out / reminded us, we tend to (in this WG / channel) prefer to presume more humor, less malice, than the other way around. :)
#
AnnB +1 Tantek
#
shepazu huh... it seems more like you prefer dropping meaningless citations and links to statements that we both can read in our backscrolls or minutes, like you're trying to win an argument rather than be plainspoken and honest :P
#
AnnB (doing other work right now; have not read any of preceding convo; so only +1'ing the hope to presume innocence and be supportive)
#
tantek shepazu I only drop citations when it seems like an obvious misinterpreation has occured, and rather than further back/forth, provide the citation for clarity.
#
AnnB knowing shepazu, I believe he usually is that .. except when playing werewolf!
#
AnnB goes back to Boeing ....
#
tantek thanks AnnB :)
#
shepazu tantek, someone else pointed out to me that they were uncomfortable with your statements in IRC, and that they felt you were being hostile to the Web Annotation WG. I read the backscroll, and I agree. So, whether you intended it or not, you should know that that is what you are projecting
#
tantek shepazu - happy to discuss directly with folks in IRC. Such direct discussions have typically resolved things positively for everyone.
#
shepazu you can fall back on citations or literal interpretations of words, or use of smileys, but it doesn't change the tone you're setting
#
shepazu tantek, well, I tried to talk with you about it just now, and I did not feel you tried to resolve it positively at all
#
tantek shepazu - sure, it's harder when there's more apparent presumption of malice, or labeling of someone's statements/citations as "meaningless". we'll get there eventually.
#
shepazu see, that's the kind of statement I'm talking about
#
tantek then clearly we are talking past each other, thus I'll presume neutral tone and continue onward.
#
shepazu and you're smart enough to know exactly what I mean
#
tantek that's a patronizing statement and unnecessary.
#
shepazu it's neither patronizing nor unnecessary
#
shepazu I feel it's necessary for you, in your role as chair, to be supportive of inter-group working relationships
bblfish and tilgovi joined the channel
#
aaronpk re: threaded conversations... https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Feb/0168.html
#
aaronpk isn't that just a UI issue?
#
aaronpk for example Twitter chooses to display tweets in a single stream, but each tweet is in reply to some other specific tweet
AnnB joined the channel
#
aaronpk so as long as we have the ability to mark one post as in-reply-to another post, then the software can display it threaded or not
#
ben_thatmustbeme personally i think (multi)threaded conversations are difficult to follow. Facebook got around the whole mess by just preventing comments on comments
#
aaronpk I agree
#
ben_thatmustbeme twitter allows it, which is why clicking view discussion on a single tweet is different than going to the source tweet and viewing comments on it. which can be confusing.
#
aaronpk lots of people have differing opinions about threaded conversations
#
ben_thatmustbeme agreed, should allow it then
#
aaronpk my point was that we don't need to add explicit support for them because as long as posts can be in reply to other posts, all the information needed for presenting in a threaded view is already there
#
ben_thatmustbeme checks the wiki
#
ben_thatmustbeme we don't have commenting on comments in there though
#
ben_thatmustbeme #resposes only covers commenting on a post, and liking comments (the FB style)
#
aaronpk comments are just posts
elf-pavlik joined the channel
#
ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk, in indieweb we defined them as such, but that isn't defined in user stories
#
aaronpk interesting, good catch
#
aaronpk maybe make a note of that on the new user storeis page?
#
aaronpk oh there is a mention of it https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Comments_And_Showing_Comments
tilgovi, harry, Augier and bblfish_ joined the channel