#social 2015-11-26

2015-11-26 UTC
#
melvster1 tantek: please stop closing issues that are not fully processed, reopening
#
melvster1 if i can work out how!
#
melvster1 if 5 issues were raised in the thread, we should isolate them, split them and use them for new issues
#
azaroth To add my 2c, Gobengo's original issue wasn't focused or particularly actionable beyond adding a header mechanism for discovery ... which is there now at least (so either it was missed, or it was awesomely fast work by aaronpk!)
#
aaronpk azaroth: thanks for the new issues! and actually the header has been there since the beginning
#
azaroth Closing the issue thus is appropriate in my opinion, and if there are issues that really do relate to WebMention rather than process, it would be good to split them out
#
azaroth aaronpk: No problem and thanks for the super fast responses :)
#
aaronpk I will get to the rest of them I promise :)
#
csarven What matters at the end of the day is actually simply how many show up to vote to get what they want. Everything else is in the background. Want something? Recruit your colleagues.
#
azaroth No rush. We can discuss next week
#
azaroth csarven: With all of my hats firmly in the closet, I agree with that ... but that's one of the side effects of the process that we have
#
azaroth csarven: The fine line between inclusion and stalling out due to lack of consensus is one that all WGs have to deal with
#
melvster1 Clearing up this issue
#
melvster1 @tantek please dont close an issue, that has not been fully resolved (I can see why you might have thought it was), at least until all parties are satisfied, or we take outstanding new issues that come up and put them in new threads. Which is generally a good idea. @tantek you are also not an ideal person to make such a judgment call imho as you are not following the mailing list and items here from the ML have come up here.
#
melvster1 > I am locking this issue because I feel bad for everyone else getting emails and notifications about this continuing discussion.
#
melvster1 Good thought, but, I think this is taking a slightly wrong approach. People can unsubscribe to threads. Let's instead try and reduce noise and be efficient in isolating issues, and when new ones come up, split them into a new thread. As @bblfish we were making progress. Let's not turn this into an lock / unlock war. That creates noise.
#
melvster1 By all means we can close the thread, when all parties are satisfied there's nothing more to discuss. We're not quite at that point yet. Let's make an effort to extract items that are not on the original thread and put them in a new topic.
#
azaroth Topic: Something else ;)
#
azaroth Is there a better link for http://indiewebcamp.com/Micropub-brainstorming#JSON ?
#
azaroth Is it just the HTML JSON Form submission topic?
#
azaroth (e.g. not JSON because you can't encode it from an HTML form?)
#
aaronpk azaroth: oh is that a broken link you found somewhere?
#
azaroth Sorry, yes in http://micropub.net/
#
aaronpk thanks, let me check
#
azaroth In Syntax/Overview
jasnell joined the channel
#
jasnell tantek: nope. :-)
#
melvster1 jasnell: I was wondering do you have any thoughts on:
#
melvster1 'Taking Activity Streams 2.0 to Candidate Recommendation We should evaluate progress and uptake on AS 2.0 and determine if and how we'll be taking the standard to CR. We will discuss alternatives to taking the document to CR, such as making it a Note.'
#
melvster1 from : https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01
#
aaronpk azaroth: just fixed the link https://indiewebcamp.com/Micropub-FAQ#JSON
#
azaroth aaronpk: Many thanks :) And also for the 404/410 link in the issue
#
aaronpk that one definitely seems worth clarifying in the spec! thanks
#
jasnell yes, I do, but at the moment I'm getting ready to go spend some time with the kids ... on vacation this week
#
jasnell is stepping away
#
melvster1 enjoy!
#
melvster1 aaronpk: FYI it's not even possible for me to reopen that thread and clarify the points, tho it is for you and others, I hope you can see why that comes across as heavy handed now ...
#
melvster1 I *dont* feel there's due process here
#
aaronpk melvster1: the original topic of the issue has been addressed. Open a new issue for new topics of discussion.
#
melvster1 no it hasnt
#
aaronpk You have the ability to create new issues, as does everyone else with a github account since this is a public repo.
#
melvster1 yes but you and tantek are judge, jury and executioner
#
melvster1 i dont have admin rights to reopen a topic, when you make a judgement call
#
melvster1 this is no process
jasnell joined the channel
#
aaronpk melvster1: I already addressed this here: https://github.com/w3c-social/webmention/issues/3#issuecomment-159683612
#
melvster1 there is no process here
#
csarven aaronpk Please go ahead and give the same rights to melvster1 as you do. There is absolutely no reason why any member in the WG shouldn't have equal access.
#
azaroth csarven, melvster1: Guys, relax :) There seems like reasonable process to me. You can open new issues, and you can discuss broader picture issues on the mailing list
#
melvster1 nope, there's no process here, on the ML everyone has the same access rights
#
melvster1 that's not true in github, we shouldnt be using it, that being the case
#
azaroth Everyone has the same ability to write issues and comments in the same way as writing email to the list
#
melvster1 not when a thread is locked
#
azaroth Touche'.
#
csarven Added to the agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg%2F2015-12-01&diff=86919&oldid=86918
#
csarven Done.
#
aaronpk melvster1: From my perspective, the original topics of the issue have been addressed. That is why I closed the issue. Please stop complaining and open a new issue if you think I am wrong.
#
pdurbin aaronpk: the argument seems to be that melvster1 should have admin rights on the github repo
#
csarven aaronpk Are you somehow preferring not to register the point we are making? You don't have any more special rights than melvster1.
#
aaronpk no that's a new issue
#
csarven Give melvster1 the same access as you do.
#
csarven Lets continue with issue 3 after that.
#
melvster1 aaronpk: perhaps you were not aware that different members had different access privileges, I think it would be fair for all the WG participants to be on a level playing field, dont you think?
#
Loqi Scapadis made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86919&oldid=86918
#
pdurbin melvster1: you did say that aaronpk is the hardest working person here
#
melvster1 pdurbin: no offense to you and others, but yes I think he is
#
pdurbin he's a good egg. this misunderstanding is a shame
#
csarven Actually, I think this access levels may be of concern to the W3C Staff. This is especially worrying when some get to decide who gets voice and who doesn't. That's not "open" by any measure.
#
azaroth melvster1: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/102#issuecomment-159766590 Not sure if this was on your radar or not, but ICYMI
#
melvster1 pdurbin: yes I know I met him in paris, misunderstandings are always going to happen in a global team, what's important is to be able to get past them and move on to productive work
#
azaroth csarven: FWIW, as *chair* I don't have the same access that W3C staff contacts do on the Annotation repo
#
azaroth As Github is so new to the organization, there's bound to be a /ton/ of things that come up
#
csarven Sure, I can understand that.
#
csarven But, unless there is some particular reason that I'm not aware of... majority of us here should be on equal grounds.
#
csarven Otherwise, we'll have to create new teams and fork repositories and carry on the conversations without interruptions. That's quite absurd and embarassing to see, and hope that it doesn't come to that.
#
azaroth So good to make a process note and see what can be done, and hopefully chairs here will discuss with other W3C folks to try and ensure the resolution becomes commonplace
#
csarven So, we can have iwc-webmention and w3c-webmention. Not like this didn't happen with whatwg-html and w3c-html. Which is a very sad situation to be in and we all lose out.
#
azaroth Indeed, let's try to avoid that!
#
azaroth And with that, happy Thanksgiving for those that celebrate it
#
azaroth disappears
tantek and jasnell joined the channel
#
Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86920&oldid=86919
bblfish joined the channel
#
ben_thatmustbeme reads scrollback.
#
ben_thatmustbeme Editors should be admins to their own spec issues repos. Simple as that
jasnell, Arnaud, bblfish and cwebber2 joined the channel
#
csarven ben_thatmustbeme Fair enough. Editors are admin, everyone else is a member with equal access. At the moment: 1) editors are unknown 2) access is uneven. 2 can be fixed. If 1 happens, great.
jasnell, bblfish, peacekeeper, bengo, melvster1 and jaywink joined the channel
#
Loqi Wilkie made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86923&oldid=86920
bblfish, edhelas, shepazu, bigbluehat, tessierashpool_ and ElijahLynn joined the channel