2015-09-29 UTC
jasnell, nicolagreco, tilgovi, bblfish, peacekeeper, the_frey, bblfish_, elf-pavlik, melvster, shepazu, eprodrom and tantek joined the channel
AnnB and bblfish joined the channel
hhalpin, Arnaud1, Arnaud, bblfish, the_frey and nicolagreco joined the channel
RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim joined the channel
# 17:02 Zakim I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot # 17:02 hhalpin present+ hhalpin # 17:02 eprodrom present+ eprodrom # 17:06 hhalpin apologies, having to be a bit in-and-out due to cybersecurity event at csail # 17:07 aaronpk tantek: we have converged on Dec 1-2 in SF based on the doodle poll # 17:07 aaronpk ... hosted by mozilla, and if for some reason that falls through, IBM has offered to be a backup # 17:07 aaronpk ... expect details on that soon, but you can start planning travel # 17:08 Arnaud not really! if you'd been on the chairs you would know I guess # 17:08 aaronpk ... you can fly in to either the oakland or SFO you can get there by transit # 17:08 aaronpk sandro: is there a particular hotel you would recommend? # 17:08 aaronpk tantek: SF has this odd hotel market, hotels are typically very expensive, so I don't tend to recommend them # 17:09 aaronpk ... so many of the hotels around town are within minutes via transit, so it's mostly personal preference # 17:09 aaronpk ... there are a lot of folks who are price sensitive, so I would strongly encourage looking at getting an airbnb # 17:09 aaronpk ... which is also a good option to go in on and share # 17:10 hhalpin but haven't looked into their distance from this particular venue # 17:10 aaronpk ... if there are specific hotels you have questions about I am happy to take those offline # 17:10 aaronpk ... but I would generally recommend airbnb near transit # 17:11 aaronpk ... is there anyone here who can defintiely make it or definitely not? # 17:11 hhalpin +1 (likely, need to ask travel permission) # 17:11 aaronpk sandro: why do we not think the doodle poll is accurate # 17:11 aaronpk sandro: at this point i woudl think the doodle poll is accurate # 17:11 AnnB as time passes, then you might want to check # 17:12 aaronpk tantek: Ann you're on the call but i don't see you on the poll # 17:13 aaronpk AnnB: that's because Boeing is dropping out, and I won't be able to be an invited expert for 3 months according to process # 17:13 Zakim Present: aaronpk, tantek, Arnaud, sandro, AnnB, hhalpin, eprodrom, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber2, kevinmarks, tsyesika # 17:13 Zakim On IRC I see RRSAgent, hhalpin, Arnaud, AnnB, tantek, eprodrom, jasnell, shepazu, melvster, elf-pavlik, Loqi, bret, KevinMarks, ben_thatmustbeme, ElijahLynn, tessierashpool_, # 17:13 Zakim ... bigbluehat, wilkie, rhiaro_, cwebber2, wavis, dwhly, pdurbin, oshepherd, rhiaro, slvrbckt, aaronpk, tommorris_, tsyesika, raucao, sandro, trackbot, wseltzer_transit # 17:13 cwebber2 AnnB: we will miss you, but look forward working with you when all things work out :) # 17:13 aaronpk AnnB: I am exploring the possibility of an ongoing role (not a paid job) with the w3c, because i think the work is important # 17:13 aaronpk hhalpin: i'm sure we can do an invited expert thing # 17:13 aaronpk AnnB: Dec 11 is my last day, i'mt aking a voluntary layoff # 17:14 aaronpk tantek: we definitely appreciate all of your contributions # 17:15 aaronpk eprodrom: I started a wiki page for the f2f so wec an start put together a list of actual attendees # 17:15 aaronpk ... as well as starting to put together the agenda # 17:15 tantek eprodrom++ for starting the wiki page for the f2f! # 17:15 aaronpk ... so that's the place to put your name if you'd like to express your interest or regrets # 17:15 AnnB Evan is a rock star # 17:15 aaronpk tantek: sounds good, loks like the only person on the call who did not answer the doodle is jessica # 17:16 aaronpk ... sorry to hear that. we'l try to set up some sort of remote participation # 17:17 aaronpk ... i'm pretty excited about this, if we do get about a dozen people there according to the poll we would have a very productive session # 17:17 aaronpk tantek: in particular, two things there, publication status... # 17:17 aaronpk jasnell: i have the updated draft ready to go, waiting on some things on the w3c side # 17:18 aaronpk ... the pubchecker doesn't support the new publication license, so it errors when I attempt to publish # 17:18 aaronpk .. were you able to file a github issue against it? bblfish joined the channel
# 17:18 aaronpk jasnell: working on it, following up later on this morning # 17:18 aaronpk sandro: pretty sure it's being taken care of, the patch is being done and now it's just the copyright # 17:19 aaronpk Arnaud: there are two parts to this problem, the first one was fixed with respec getting updated for the new license, tbut the rules checker is not yet done jaywink joined the channel
# 17:19 aaronpk jasnell: as soon as that's done i can get it published # 17:19 aaronpk tantek: did the folks applying the patch have an ETA for when the updated pubrules checker would be live? jasnell_ joined the channel
# 17:20 aaronpk tantek: I wanted to offer my thanks for being the w3c canary in the new license coal mine and finding the obstacles in the process # 17:20 aaronpk ... every other group adopting this licesnse will benefit from the work being done # 17:21 aaronpk tantek: james were there specific issues you wanted to discuss? # 17:21 aaronpk ... I know some others have raised issues but none from me # 17:21 aaronpk eprodrom: the issue I want to make sure we bring attention to is #8, the test suite # 17:21 aaronpk ... this iss osmething we need to get done to go to CR and it's languishing # 17:22 aaronpk ... we need to put more interest in it as a group # 17:22 aaronpk ... we had for a while a developer from IBM, I don't think he's still pushing this forward # 17:22 aaronpk ... so my question is what can we do to push forward the test suite # 17:22 aaronpk ... is the code we have a good basis for moving forward and if not how do we get there # 17:22 Arnaud sandro, I will send a follow up to the email thread I started with specprod # 17:22 aaronpk ... and in particular who would like to work on the test quite # 17:22 aaronpk tantek: i agree the test suite is one of the essential items for us to make progress # 17:23 aaronpk ... it also helps to signal that a working draft is being implemented # 17:23 aaronpk ... because that typically means there are implementers coding against those tests # 17:23 aaronpk ... it helps demonstrate that we've been doing our homeworok properly # 17:23 aaronpk ... i want to repeat evan's call for volunteers, we definitely need folks to contribute to the test suite # 17:23 eprodrom jasnell_: did we lose you? # 17:23 aaronpk ... prefereably people who are actually implementing # 17:23 aaronpk ... but of course anyone, even if you are publishing or consuming can contribute tests # 17:24 aaronpk hhalpin: quick question, i think we could try to devote some thoughtworks resources to it # 17:24 aaronpk ... they have a contract to contribute to AS2.0, did we approve their IE access? # 17:24 aaronpk tantek: just to make it clear, what's the realtionship between W3C and thoughtworks? # 17:25 aaronpk hhalpin: thoughtworks is on a contract not from w3c with three city govs, finland spain and iceland, they are buidling some software using AS2.0 to share public data # 17:25 aaronpk ... they're asking me when their IE status is approved # 17:25 aaronpk tantek: so that contract is not with the w3c but they are being paid by whoever they are contracted with # 17:25 aaronpk tantek: is the european commission a member of the w3c # 17:26 aaronpk eprodrom: we didn't have a lot of information on thoughtworks so we wanted more information before we approve their application # 17:26 aaronpk tantek: so evan you've already taken an action to # 17:26 aaronpk eprodrom: yes, hopefully we'll have that discussion next week # 17:27 aaronpk tantek: hopefully we'll have a thumbsup/down status on their participation before the call next week bblfish joined the channel
# 17:27 aaronpk ... assuming they are accepted would be great to have them on the call next week # 17:27 aaronpk ... chris or jessica, want to provide a status update on the collaborative work? # 17:28 tsyesika I've been busy this week so I'm probably not the best person to ask # 17:28 aaronpk cwebber2: i haven't been active on it, haven't spoken to amy or aaron this week # 17:29 aaronpk aaronpk: I've been working on my implemenation this week, specifically abotu collections and multiple feeds, so nothing to share just yet but hopfully soon # 17:30 aaronpk tantek: looking quickly there aren't any pending or raised issues # 17:30 aaronpk ... anyone have specific issues they have new information to report? # 17:31 trackbot issue-4 -- Do we rely on explicit typing or support implicit typing based on explicit property names? -- open # 17:31 trackbot action-35 -- Tantek Çelik to Come up with a simple proposal for implicit typing based on property names -- due 2015-02-10 -- OPEN # 17:31 aaronpk tantek: i've completed that one with a proposal that i've written up # 17:31 aaronpk ... based on existing work in the indiewebcamp community, i'm bringing it to the WG for consideration # 17:31 aaronpk ... i've written it up on the IWC wiki but can easily copy it to the w3c wiki or github to take the next steps # 17:32 aaronpk ... if this is a proposal that this group is willing to take for consideration to publish as a working draft # 17:32 aaronpk ... i believe with this one i've completed action 35, i'll add that to the action # 17:32 hhalpin I'd have to read it first! # 17:32 aaronpk ... the specific proposal is for the WG to accept it as an editor's draft # 17:33 aaronpk ... and if so, then i'll go ahead and do the proper copy-paste to w3c space # 17:33 aaronpk ... we should give the group like a week to review it to see if it's reasonable to consider # 17:33 aaronpk ... is that enough time or does anyone want more time to review? # 17:33 aaronpk sandro: i'm confused abotu the discussion process here # 17:34 aaronpk ... i would prefer the discussion to be in #social wg irc channel # 17:34 aaronpk ... of course if people want to discuss it anywhere they want like the mailing list that's fine too # 17:34 aaronpk sandro: if people want to talk to you about it, they have to find you on irc? # 17:34 aaronpk tantek: what i will do which is customary with w3c working drafts is put my email address on there # 17:35 aaronpk ... since typical drafts are discussed on the mailing list i don't see how we would differ for that, that's the convention we'd have to go with # 17:35 aaronpk eprodrom: tantek, i apologize here, but i don't know if there's a typical discussion mechanism on the indiewebcamp wiki # 17:35 aaronpk ... but i know that talk pages are kind of frowned upon, is there a way we could talk on the wiki? # 17:35 aaronpk tantek: sure! i'm happy to add a commentary/feedback section # 17:35 aaronpk eprodrom: that might be a good place to centralize the converation # 17:36 aaronpk ... that can certainly suffice for now, but if the WG adopts it as an editor's draft then the right thing to do is use the w3c discussion forums including our IRC channel and mailing list # 17:37 aaronpk .. we'll use the usual w3c technique to put the topic tag between brackets so the email threads are clear # 17:37 eprodrom +1 sounds good here # 17:37 aaronpk ... i'll mark 35 as "p[ending review" and we can discuss next week # 17:38 aaronpk eprodrom: one thing i wanted to quickly point out is in previous converstaions we've talked about having some participation by non-members, inviting outside participation # 17:38 aaronpk ... it may be good to think about what we want to do and so we can put out invitations to the public or specific developers # 17:39 aaronpk tantek: i agree. i think the participation that we wanted to focus on previously is around implementers in particular # 17:39 aaronpk ... specifically, implementers of social websites, popular existing social web services # 17:39 aaronpk ... i have a bunch of contacts at twitter if they'd want to swing by for a bit, even informally # 17:40 aaronpk ... harry has a list of folks who came to the workshop in 2013 # 17:40 aaronpk ... so harry it would be helpful if you could ping your contacts that we have a date for the next meeting # 17:40 aaronpk hhalpin: the list i have is interesting, there are some possible implementers, it's mostly companies that are in the space that have their own social projects # 17:40 aaronpk ... do we want to have a "get up to speed" session? # 17:41 aaronpk ... some of these people all came to the first workshop but may not have been here, haven't joined w3c since the fee was too high # 17:41 sandro I'd suggest a day-before stakeholders meeting, if we can get enough people # 17:41 aaronpk ... would folks prefer observers? just come one day? have a get up to speed session? # 17:41 aaronpk ... my proposal would be to have a get up to speed session the day before or early the first day, then invite them as observers but don't let them take over the meeting # 17:42 aaronpk tantek: i'm adding an observers section to the wiki so we can continue to discuss options there # 17:42 aaronpk ... go ahead and edit the wiki on the observers section and add your proposal and we can discuss after the call # 17:43 aaronpk ... as much as we can focus on implementers that's one of our concerns right now, to get enough implementers to look at the specs and say can I build for this, how soon, that kind o things # 17:43 aaronpk hhalpin: agreed 100%, maybe we can get people who previously checked out to look at it again # 17:44 aaronpk tantek: i think that's it for the agenda, any additional topics? # 17:44 aaronpk tantek: sandro also just suggested a hackathon after the meeting, that's a good idea # 17:45 aaronpk ... not hearing any additional topics i'm going to close the call and give you 15 minute sback! # 17:45 eprodrom Thanks tantek! # 17:45 AnnB see you a few months! # 17:45 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, tantek, Arnaud, sandro, AnnB, hhalpin, eprodrom, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber2, kevinmarks, tsyesika # 17:45 AnnB be well, do good work jasnell joined the channel
# 17:55 tantek I wonder if Github issues for discussion is sufficient then # 17:55 tantek would prefer github issues instead of email list # 18:00 aaronpk I think it's also fine when a github repo has no content and is only used for the issue tracker # 18:01 aaronpk i'm juyst saying if you don't want the github repo to be the actual location of the spec content # 18:02 tantek I wonder if it is possible to use W3C's new publication system (Echidna) to publish from the W3C wiki # 18:04 tantek If it's accepted into the working group as an Editor's draft, my plan is to keep a copy on the W3C wiki, and use our W3C Social Web github for Issues, as well as this channel (#social) for discussion - both of which, officially *instead of* email. Unofficial discussion are of course encouraged anywhere people want! bblfish, nicolagreco, jasnell and tilgovi joined the channel
# 20:06 Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed jasnell_, elf-pavlik, bblfish and jasnell joined the channel
Loqi Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85796&oldid=85777
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/29-social-irc
AnnB present+ AnnB
tantek Agenda is in the /topic but just in case: http://www.w3.org/wiki/socialwg/2015-09-29
ben_thatmustbeme present+ ben_thatmustbeme
KevinMarks present+ kevinmarks
sandro For the more adventurous WG members looking for an AIRBNB, a shared yacht! https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/6481703?checkin=11%2F30%2F2015&checkout=12%2F02%2F2015&s=hPpw895R
trackbot Sorry, aaronpk, I don't understand 'trackbot, make minutes public'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.