2015-06-09 UTC
bblfish and bengo joined the channel
bblfish, bengo, Arnaud, Arnaud1, bblfish_, tommorris_, bret, mattl, JakeHart, bigbluehat, tessierashpool_, ElijahLynn, dwhly, pfefferle, tsyesika and pfefferle_ joined the channel
elf-pavlik and the_frey joined the channel
# 12:24 cwebber2` hello everyone! jasnell joined the channel
bblfish, jasnell and ben_thatmustbeme joined the channel
# 16:46 rhiaro Hey #social, are we using Zakim today or the new thing? # 16:46 rhiaro And if the new thing, can anyone point to SIP instructions? AnnB joined the channel
bblfish joined the channel
# 16:55 Arnaud the webex client supports VOIP, there is nothing special to do # 16:56 Arnaud the UI provides you with several options one of which is something like "call from computer" RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim joined the channel
# 16:58 Zakim ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes tantek joined the channel
# 17:00 aaronpk just when I finally have the Zakim number memorized we're gonna stop using it :( # 17:04 wseltzer scribenick: cwebber2 # 17:04 wseltzer thanks cwebber2! # 17:04 cwebber2 cwebber2: thanks wseltzer, I always forget how to do that ;) # 17:04 cwebber2 Arnaud: I propose to approve the minutes, but I must note that we had a resolution w/ regard to the microformats examples in the AS specification, and as expected # 17:05 cwebber2 ... we agreed to this process to allow people who aren't on calls to object via email # 17:05 Zakim sees on the phone: jasnell, Arnaud, Sandro, cwebber2, aaronpk, tantek (muted), Wendy, Ann, ben_thatmustbeme (muted) # 17:05 tantek in practice an editing resolution that the editor disagrees with is problematic anyway, and no amount of process will fix that # 17:06 cwebber2 ... I think we can approve the minutes otherwise, any objections? # 17:06 cwebber2 ... then we can get back to the question of the AS 2 matter # 17:06 cwebber2 ... okay, tracking the issues, nothing is marked review # 17:07 Zakim sorry, bret, I do not recognize a party named '1.503.688.aacc' # 17:07 cwebber2 ... I know this part of the process is boring to everyone, so to experiment we move on proceeding to addressing issues as relate to the agenda itmes # 17:07 cwebber2 ... make sure it's on the agenda if you want it recognized and discussed # 17:07 cwebber2 ... otherwise let's minimize the time on it. Otherwise everyone's like "aaaaugh" # 17:07 cwebber2 ... I don't enjoy it myself, so maybe we can minimize time on it # 17:07 cwebber2 ... let's move forward on the agenda, talk about social syntax # 17:07 tantek it's good minimize incentive to add actions/issues that don't need attention of the whole group # 17:08 cwebber2 ... what this also means: chairs have job of keeping an eye on the actions when things seem missing # 17:08 cwebber2 ... otherwise it might be able to move faster that way # 17:08 jasnell just fyi... I'm technically on vacation this week. I can only be on the call until 10:30am. # 17:08 cwebber2 ... let's talk about the social syntax. jasnell made a new draft ready for viewing, as an update it's not in the next stage of the recommendation yet (candidate reccommendation) but gives chance for the committee at large to observe and note the draft # 17:09 cwebber2 ... brand new for most people, so we agreed to give everyone a week to give everyone a week to review # 17:09 Arnaud PROPOSED: Publish latest Editor's drafts of AS 2.0 Core and Vocab # 17:09 cwebber2 ... there are 2 docs, the core and vocab documents. goal is to publish as is # 17:09 cwebber2 tantek: I'm going to object to publishing the draft as is bbecause it goes against the group's resolution # 17:10 cwebber2 ... we had consensus to add MF examples back in again # 17:10 cwebber2 ... it's odd to reject that and asking for publication with lacking what the rest of the group agreed to # 17:10 aaronpk whatever happened to the idea of removing everything except the JSON version? # 17:10 cwebber2 ... it's a roadblock, I think it's not a good process to go forward with what the group has # 17:10 AnnB we need to find the process that says someone who was not attending can object to resolution # 17:10 cwebber2 Arnaud: it's not a resolution, since there was an objection from the mailing list # 17:11 bret aaronpk: i think that would be a good solution # 17:11 cwebber2 tantek: that's now all resolutions work. we had a call and we had a resolution declared # 17:11 cwebber2 Arnaud: no, we agreed that we'd allow people to object who didn't attend, otherwise there are other modes to allow for async votes # 17:11 cwebber2 ... there are people who can't attend because of thet imes thing # 17:11 cwebber2 ... we agreed to this, I'm not trying to revise history # 17:12 jasnell Counter Proposal: Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document # 17:12 cwebber2 ... along the lines of what elf put on mailing list, not fight on syntax for what's in the doc, proposal is to remove all others from main spec # 17:12 cwebber2 ... and have complimentary spec on the side where we put all other formats # 17:12 cwebber2 ... I'd like to make this proposal to make that concern # 17:13 cwebber2 tantek: it's easy to make that commitment when nobody has resolved to getting things done # 17:13 Arnaud PROPOSED: Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document. # 17:13 cwebber2 ... unless you actually have a split document with the equiv examples # 17:13 cwebber2 ... where you say you'll put them together, refledcting previous content of spec # 17:14 cwebber2 ... another counter-proposal: publish it right before # 17:14 cwebber2 Arnaud: but there were many other changes made as in terms of editing document # 17:14 cwebber2 ... examples were broken, I can see why as an editor he did that # 17:15 cwebber2 ... I think this proposal is a reasonable one, shows some compromise, not trying to single out MF # 17:15 tantek it's not a reasonable proposal, because the 2nd document doesn't exist # 17:15 cwebber2 bblfish: I suppose there's a big difference between... there's an advantage in turtle, you can test isomorphism between two drafts # 17:15 tantek if we were proposing publishing both simultaneously as an update that would be reasonable # 17:15 cwebber2 ... there's a reson to have turtle in there because of that but I won't push for it # 17:15 AnnB s/two drafts/two graphs/ # 17:15 ben_thatmustbeme i would -1 and publishing UNTIL such a document is created though, only then can we vote on it # 17:16 Zakim sees jasnell, tantek on the speaker queue # 17:16 cwebber2 bblfish: easier to have json-ld now, later others can be added # 17:16 cwebber2 jasnell: regarding the "empty promise", if someone feels that MF examples is important enough, those folks should volunteer to step up to do that # 17:16 cwebber2 tantek: that's not reasonable, you made the counter-proposal # 17:16 cwebber2 jasnell: in all defense, I'm doing what's important enough to get done # 17:17 cwebber2 ... those examples have been sitting for 8 months now # 17:17 cwebber2 ... number of times the examples are broken, I've only received one pull request to fix them # 17:17 cwebber2 ... to me, that says those changes aren't as important # 17:17 Zakim sees tantek, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:17 cwebber2 ... since this group has never decided that MF is a normative requirement, I think unless someone steps up to provide a complete set of examples # 17:17 cwebber2 ... if someone wants to do a pull request that does complete examples, I'll land it # 17:18 cwebber2 ... if someone wants to do a separate document, great # 17:18 cwebber2 ... is it an empty promise to put it in a separate document? that goes for everything # 17:18 cwebber2 ... it doesn't matter if it's broken examples in this spec or # 17:18 cwebber2 tantek: it's a working draft, things are expecdted to be broken # 17:18 cwebber2 jasnell: but we need to get things closer as we move towards real recommendation # 17:19 cwebber2 Arnaud: in all fairness I can understand the argument that this is an empty promise, but # 17:19 cwebber2 ... you can say that's an equivalent empty promise that these microformats examples will be fixed # 17:19 cwebber2 tantek: so mark the MF examples as broken, that's a reasonable thing to do # 17:19 cwebber2 ... I agree with jasnell concerns of them being broken, I have a problem with that resolution AdamB joined the channel
# 17:20 cwebber2 tantek: that's not a reasonable question to ask, we're not asking how long to a CR # 17:20 cwebber2 tantek: we can go to CR with borken examples, so that's an aritificial barrier # 17:21 cwebber2 tantek: bblfish brought up turtle examples, I for one in fixing MF examples understood that in ffixing the examples, it made the json-ld examples more readable # 17:21 cwebber2 ... looking for a more readable spec, it's better for all the non-json-ld exmaples # 17:21 cwebber2 bblfish: even though you can mark things a broken, this must be automated # 17:21 cwebber2 ... add js so that when it's broken, highlight in read # 17:22 cwebber2 ... add isomorphic algorithms to show they're equivalent # 17:22 cwebber2 ... I think the danger is that isomorphic mapping might not exist, but then it's needed # 17:22 cwebber2 ... b/c a bug might appear, they might not see the original, then there will be a disconnect between understanding and document # 17:22 cwebber2 ... I see why it's difficult for jasnell to see if the other formats are documents are correct # 17:22 cwebber2 ... because there's too many documents for any human being # 17:23 cwebber2 ... json-ld is not so bad, but I think a simple solution is auto-translation from json-ld->turtle in javascript # 17:23 cwebber2 Arnaud: I think making the case (?) for moving things out of the spec, because this sounds like more work # 17:24 rhiaro having the examples in a separate document would still be helpful for understanding the spec, for people who wanted it, right? the_frey joined the channel
# 17:24 cwebber2 AnnB: seems to me that the main issue jasnell added is that the MF examples were wrong and turtle (?) but it seems like if tantek and bblfish want to keep them in, they should step up # 17:24 cwebber2 Arnaud: problem is tantek had action for months to fix this, hasn't happened, so I think that's why jasnell removed it # 17:24 bblfish I am fine to have Turtle out, but would be quite happy with automatic translation from Json-ld to Turtle # 17:25 cwebber2 ... I know we don't pay enough to actions, but that action was in January # 17:25 cwebber2 AnnB: it seems to me that the crux of the disucssion, tantek if you argue to keep the MF examples in # 17:25 cwebber2 tantek: I started, but I pointed out it'll take a while # 17:26 cwebber2 ... I found errors with all the HTML examples, whether MF or RDFA or MD # 17:26 cwebber2 ... I discovered this was incorrect use of link, rel, href tag... # 17:26 cwebber2 ... took jasnell a while to fix with my pull request, maybe it's not important to him # 17:26 cwebber2 ... but that work got solved, I think it's unreasonable to say nothing was done # 17:27 cwebber2 AnnB: without casting blame, what can we do to move forward # 17:28 cwebber2 ... other counter proposal, show version before they got dropped # 17:29 cwebber2 Arnaud: I think you have a fair point that jasnell could have given a warning # 17:29 cwebber2 ... at same time, what you just said before w/r/t of other examples # 17:29 cwebber2 ... jasnell is not interested maintianing all of them # 17:30 cwebber2 ... what we're risking is jasnell will say I'm out of here # 17:30 cwebber2 ... my question is counter-proposal is to get other doc and wait for it # 17:30 cwebber2 ... do we have a volunteer for editor of other document # 17:30 jasnell I have to drop. I will repeat: I do not have the time to create a complete set of correct microformats examples # 17:31 jasnell it's not too difficult, but it would take me *months* because microformats examples are nowhere near a priority for me # 17:31 cwebber2 ... I feel this is why it's reasonable, if someone wants to step up, great # 17:31 Arnaud PROPOSED: Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document. # 17:31 jasnell +1 to removing all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents # 17:32 AnnB tantek, could you please type your counter-proposal into IRC, so we can compare them? # 17:32 cwebber2 Arnaud: the counter proposal to go back to before he removed it is unreasonable, that means throwing out all the work he did after that # 17:33 Arnaud PROPOSED: a) Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document. b) go back to the revision before microformats was removed - take a week to review this and figure out what we lose - c) wait for a second doc # 17:35 cwebber2 Arnaud: I will point out that this requires someone to step up to do it # 17:35 cwebber2 Arnaud: yes, to draft a document where the alternative syntax for all examples # 17:36 AdamB (a) +1, (b) -1 , (c) 0 # 17:36 ben_thatmustbeme I am willing to try to revert the change in git, which I think is easier than expected # 17:36 AnnB s/the second?/the second document?/ # 17:36 cwebber2 Arnaud: tantek: AnnB: clarify that referenced was c) was "second document" # 17:36 tantek note that ben_thatmustbeme volunteered to do the edit for option (b) # 17:36 cwebber2 sandro: I haven't heard an argument for motivation for waiting for second document is... # 17:37 jasnell Another proposal: let's give it two weeks. If someone steps up in that time to edit the second document with the examples, then great. Otherwise we drop the non JSON-LD examples because they are non-normative. # 17:37 cwebber2 sandro: I heard "it's an empty promise" but I don't see how the industry is helped by waiting for the json-ld for everything else # 17:37 cwebber2 tantek: what you pointed out was dropping the other examples indicates the other formats are (??) # 17:38 cwebber2 tantek: I've noticed (garbled) before the examples were dropped bengo joined the channel
# 17:38 Zakim ben_thatmustbeme should no longer be muted # 17:38 cwebber2 AnnB: ben_thatmustbeme volunteered to try to revert the change # 17:39 jasnell keeping in mind that there is no mapping between microformats and AS2 that we can use to judge the correctness of the examples # 17:39 cwebber2 AnnB: what about if ben takes this week to explore what's involved in making the change # 17:39 jasnell btw, I will not be here next week and will not be available to review or land any PR's for at least a week # 17:39 cwebber2 Arnaud: but you have to figure out how to revert the MF peices without losing all other pieces # 17:39 bret reverting the change is pretty easy, fixing the examples is the work # 17:40 aaronpk just to be clear, is part of the proposal to publish the incorrect microformats examples and fix them later? # 17:40 cwebber2 Arnaud: it's not on the MF alone, jasnell said the others are broken too # 17:40 cwebber2 AnnB: seems there's two levels of problems, some is that some was deleted and others fixed, making it hard to move back # 17:41 cwebber2 ... why are the alternate RDF examples like rdfa and turtle generated by hand # 17:41 Zakim cwebber2, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...' # 17:41 cwebber2 jasnell: I need to go, so here's my last thing: 1) I added those examples in the first placed without notifying anyone # 17:42 cwebber2 ... 2) part of the challenge with creating correct examples: there is no normative mapping. For RDFa and MicroData, we can create examples that make sense, but incorrectness is what html elements are used, that's a minor issue # 17:42 tantek q+ to say but even with the supposed mapping to RDFa and microdata, they were wrong. If it was a minor issue, why weren't they fixed for months since the feedback was given? # 17:42 cwebber2 ... main challenge with microformats is that there's no mapping back to RDF mapping even to turtle or RDFa let alone to json-ld # 17:42 tantek there is a canonical mapping from microformats2 to JSON # 17:43 cwebber2 ... so what happens is when we try to produce a 1:1 mapping between json-ld an acitvity, we lose fidelity # 17:43 tantek there is a 1:1 mapping of mf2 to JSON - not sure what if anything needs to be added to map to JSONLD # 17:43 cwebber2 ... so we can put those examples back in, but we show readers that don't actually exist # 17:43 cwebber2 ... tantek argues that we always need to base things on real example sthat people actually deploy # 17:43 tantek all the fixed examples reflected actual use in real implementations # 17:44 cwebber2 ... but there is no example of anythign that people are using in real life # 17:44 cwebber2 ... there's no work since 8 months ago on that mapping # 17:44 tantek when did that pull request get merged? that was much more recent than 8 months ago # 17:44 cwebber2 ... if you think it's something we need to have for the MF examples # 17:44 AdamB isn't there also a resource constraint issue on the editor if those are in there over the long haul? would having them as a separate document making keeping them correct and up to date easier cause the work load could be spread to others? # 17:44 tantek I think 8 months ago is being mis-cited - that was when we agred to *start* looking at the examples # 17:44 cwebber2 ... it's not something I can do jsut sitting, because I don't have the time # 17:44 cwebber2 ... I'm happy to put them back in as long as they are useful to the readers # 17:44 Zakim tantek, you wanted to say but even with the supposed mapping to RDFa and microdata, they were wrong. If it was a minor issue, why weren't they fixed for months since the feedback # 17:44 tantek useful is anything better than previous draft # 17:44 cwebber2 ... the only way they are useful is if they are correct # 17:45 cwebber2 ... feedback on RDFa and MF stuff happened at same time # 17:46 cwebber2 Arnaud: but you're missing that jasnell is not willing to maintain them, someone needs to fix them # 17:46 jasnell I'm +1 on removing all non JSON-LD examples so that there are no incorrect rdfa, microdata or microformats examples in the spec # 17:46 cwebber2 ... it's the editor's responsibility to do this, if the editor isn't willing to do it but nobody steps up # 17:47 cwebber2 ... jasnell showed good intention by putting them there # 17:47 cwebber2 tantek: it's a problem if we can't even as this group maintain equivalent examples # 17:47 cwebber2 ... if that's really true we have more problems iwth AS2 # 17:48 cwebber2 jasnell: these are the only agreement on what json-ld was only requirement # 17:48 cwebber2 jasnell: we never agreed that MF rdfa or even turtle are requirements right? # 17:48 Zakim ben_thatmustbeme, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...' # 17:48 cwebber2 jasnell: so unless someone steps up to do correct examples # 17:49 cwebber2 jasnell: okay, let's hold off on a working draft until someone has the examples # 17:49 cwebber2 Arnaud: okay so we'll have no resoultion til the next 2 weeks # 17:49 cwebber2 tantek: the two weeks give someone 2 weeks to step up # 17:50 cwebber2 Arnaud: okay 2 weeks to give them time to do it, then group time to review it... we're talking a month from now to even publish # 17:50 cwebber2 tantek: we don't have a consensus, let's move onto it in 2 weeks # 17:50 AnnB but, what will happen during the next 2 weeks? anything? # 17:51 cwebber2 Arnaud: let's see in 2 weeks, if there' no movement we should do it # 17:51 cwebber2 ... we need a test suite to go to CR, we need people to help # 17:51 cwebber2 ... someone from IBM is putting together a test suite around IBM's stuff # 17:51 cwebber2 ... unless we have people volunteering to do some of this work it won't happen # 17:52 cwebber2 ... so let's move on to the last important item that tantek brought up # 17:52 cwebber2 ... we can revise our charter to use new document license # 17:52 cwebber2 tantek: that's it, let's resolve as a group, many of us worked hard to get this valid # 17:52 cwebber2 ... also all new working groups will use this license # 17:52 wseltzer q+ re "new wgs" # 17:53 wseltzer [It's not the case that all new WGs will be using different doc licenses] # 17:53 cwebber2 sandro: any risk of not sufficient votes to teh charter # 17:53 Zakim wseltzer, you wanted to discuss "new wgs" # 17:53 cwebber2 tantek: the only risk is update is rejected, we keep current charter # 17:54 cwebber2 wseltzer: thanks, we did introduce a new license, an update to the w3c software license which we make available in places where w3c has offered a permissive license bengo joined the channel
# 17:54 cwebber2 ... sorry for those who aren't copyright licensing geeks as I am # 17:54 cwebber2 ... but our document license now says we're free to copy, modify for any purpose for any purpose except a new specification # 17:54 cwebber2 ... we also have a software and document license which is completely permissive which says copy and modify so long as you give attribution # 17:55 cwebber2 ... w3c at an organizational level has not said the software license is appropriate for all new groups or even specific new groups # 17:55 cwebber2 ... so if you have a reason you'd like to see that license used, that'd spark a broader conversation # 17:55 Arnaud Proposal: Request a revision of our charter to use the new W3C Software and Document license for all Social Web WG specs ASAP. # 17:55 cwebber2 Arnaud: we can't agree to adopt it, we can only agree to request a recharter # 17:57 cwebber2 ... my understanding is a charter amendment is easier than a rewrite(?) # 17:57 cwebber2 Arnaud: as w3c rep I can say that if you say "the only change is this" that makes it much easier # 17:57 cwebber2 ... it would add a lot more work to everyone down the line # 17:57 AnnB +1 if it's only about new doc license # 17:58 AnnB concerned about adding other stuff to re-chartering .. but would depend on what "stuff" # 17:58 cwebber2 wseltzer: since we have to bring this to various groups to review, is there a use case # 17:58 cwebber2 tantek: I think general use case is what this group does comes from outside groups # 17:59 wseltzer cwebber2: this was imprortatn to me: in the library I'm writing, I want to put the doc strings into the code # 17:59 wseltzer ... so the author/user can see the strings # 18:00 wseltzer ... having a GPL-incompatible license is a concern to me # 18:00 Arnaud RESOLVED: Request a revision of our charter to use the new W3C Software and Document license for all Social Web WG specs ASAP # 18:00 cwebber2 Arnaud: and one thing the new license does is allow spec stuff in code # 18:00 wseltzer [that's true of both licenses; only the Software license is GPL-compatible] # 18:01 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been jasnell, Arnaud, Sandro, +1.773.614.aaaa, aaronpk, tantek, Wendy, Ann, cwebber2, +1.401.305.aabb, ben_thatmustbeme, tsyesika, rhiaro, # 18:01 Zakim ... +1.503.688.aacc, bret, +1.408.335.aadd, KevinMarks, +33.6.38.32.aaee # 18:01 Zakim Attendees were jasnell, Arnaud, Sandro, +1.773.614.aaaa, aaronpk, tantek, Wendy, Ann, cwebber2, +1.401.305.aabb, ben_thatmustbeme, tsyesika, rhiaro, +1.503.688.aacc, bret, # 18:01 Zakim ... +1.408.335.aadd, KevinMarks, +33.6.38.32.aaee # 18:09 cwebber2 wseltzer: btw, at a future w3c meeting, maybe it would be interesting to get more insights into your copyright perspectives from your w3c work :) # 18:09 cwebber2 I'm always interested in talking to more license geeks. bengo joined the channel
# 18:12 tantek (it's part of my "day job" at Mozilla to work on such things) # 18:12 cwebber2 tantek: I haven't done as much license nerding out since I left CC, but always interested in such topics :) # 18:13 wseltzer cwebber2, sure # 18:14 wseltzer btw, I'm happy to see the group talking about liberalizing its license, and wanted to make sure that the record included reasoning like yours jasnell_ joined the channel
bengo joined the channel
# 18:43 AnnB gee .. sounds like the fire sprinkler system in our building has a problem ... going home! # 18:44 AnnB (already took one shower today) bengo, LCyrin and elf-pavlik joined the channel
bblfish, ben_thatmustbeme and bengo joined the channel
# 20:06 melvster jasnell_ : any reason to take out turtle from the spec? there should be a straight normative translation two and from JSON LD ... I can see the case for the other serializations, if there's not enough man power ... ben_thatmustbeme joined the channel
# 20:07 Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed # 20:07 melvster LDP (and therefore SoLiD) requires turtle, and that's already a W3C REC # 20:09 tantek melvster - re: "not enough man power" - ben_thatmustbeme already did the work to restore all the examples # 20:18 ben_thatmustbeme these deletions are a lie too. they are shifted down, it confused Add 20 lines as -3, add 23 bengo joined the channel
# 20:38 melvster im curious why this is prominent : urn:example:person:martin # 20:39 melvster but being a web standards group I might have expected reuse of web identifiers such as HTTP # 20:45 melvster ive never seen a person as a urn: in any system, so it's a curious choice # 20:46 aaronpk the only time you should see a person as an urn is when they are cremated # 20:48 melvster the as context looks like a first class piece of work # 20:51 melvster i suppose the question is how educational it would be to a newcomer # 20:56 melvster AS2 looks fine to me ... modulo stylistic differences # 20:56 melvster A document that defines a specification for a client-side API that lets developers embed and format third party information such as social status updates inside Web applications. bengo joined the channel
# 21:02 melvster i guess people will want named queries too, do we have a list? AnnB joined the channel
# 21:20 melvster what i need for my social app is : for a given user, to get the latest chat activity with them and pull it into a client # 21:21 melvster at the moment I do this through follow your nose, but if there's an API for it, even better! bengo, ben_thatmustbeme and jansauer joined the channel
Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-06-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84412&oldid=0
cwebber2` hello everyone!
aaronpk https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-06-09 says zakim
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-social-irc
ben_thatmustbeme Zakim, aabb is me
Arnaud PROPOSED: Approve Minutes of 2 June 2015 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-06-02-minutes with the caveat that the resolution about AS 2.0 microformats was objected by James Snell
KevinMarks zakim aadd is me
tantek cwebber2 - we should chat more then! IANAL but definitely spent a lot of time with license lawyers, and have written up things like: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Standards/license