rhiaroSandro: brewster khale from archive.org posted about decentralising the web a few months ago. i learned yesterday that they are holding a summit in SF which overlaps with the f2f
rhiarohe annbass, did you see this? PROPOSED: Pending confirmation of availability from host by Aaron, change F2F dates from 2016-06-07..08 to 2016-06-06..07
rhiaro... Last week we voted to accept the exit criteria and publish a new draft, as well as the big thing from last week's call was developing the implementation report template and method
rhiaro... And I filled out a sample for one of my implementations so you can take a look at that and fork the repo, copy the file, and send a PR to submit a report
rhiaro... On my todo list is still to create the tests for receiving in webmention.rocks, but the tests themselves are described in the implementationr eport
rhiaro... So it is possible to submit a complete report including verifying the behaviour of the receiver even though there is not a tool in place to assist with that
rhiaro... I noticed that for the implementation you put a link to a section in the spec, you have a section in the spec for that and I don't think that's the way to do this because you want more of a live document for that
rhiaro... It doesn't matter where, but I think it should be outside of the spec so that once the spec is in CR you can keep updating that as much as you want without having to republish
rhiaro... Happy to take that out and move the content to possiblyl the github page with the implementation report template, or the wiki, we'll figure out what makes mroe sense
rhiarotantek: github sugggestion makes the most sense since developers will show up to write an implementation report and see the existing ones, and if you're showing up to look at the implementationr eport it's easier to discover how to make one of your own
rhiaroaaronpk: Not yet had a vote, based on progress from last week to this week I don't have anything else on my todo list before we can vote to take it to CR
rhiaroeprodrom: When we first started working on this and the other parts of our suite, activitypub, AS2, micropub, we started progressing towards recommendation status with the idea that we would have this evolving process happen, some of them would end up as notes, some of them would never make it to cr, some of them would become cr
rhiaroeprodrom: I simply am saying that we have a charter to produce certain kinds of documents, this is not one of the three specifications, it doesn't fit the requirements of any of the three, so I'd like us to have a strategy that says this is why we published it, this is the relationship to our charter, and this is what we're doing for the rest of our products
rhiaro... This came out of a discussion in december at the f2f in SF where there was a bunch of different documents we were taling about accepting for ED, and some it was clear they should be rec-track, some there wasn't that consensus
rhiaro... Then the next change that we made since that discussion in terms of how we move forward was in March we talked about the urgency of how little time we have left
rhiaroArnaud: This is a bigger question of if webmention is on the rec-track, does it qualify to move to CR? The bigger question evan is raising is should webmention be on the rec track?
rhiaro... I think it's clear to me and to the people who are interested in webmentino, but I hear evan saying we should be clear in in public somewhere about what that is
KevinMarks"Federation should include multiple servers sharing updates within a client-server architecture, and allow decentralized social systems to be built. One possible input to this task is WebMention and another possible input is the Linked Data Platform."
rhiaroeprodrom: Sandro, what you're saying is that we sould do a simple blog post about webmention, we would say that it fits in the federation protocol slot, and would we say anything about the other parts of our charter or what else we're going to produce?
rhiarosandro: I would like the post to say we're going to have consensus on one way to make thish all work so we're taking a multi faceted approach that each don't appraoch 100% of what people might want out of a federation protocol. Wm is one of those pieces here, we're not claiming it solves everything, but is sitll useful in its own right
tantekI think there's a positive way of framing that too, that this is one building block of a modular approach, and that we're still figuring out the different pieces
rhiaroannbass: I was gonna ask or suggest that rather than a blog post, for me it would be valuable if there could be I don't know what form, some sort of document ongoing summary of how the group envisions these different technologies to fit together
rhiaroeprodrom: I think what you're saying is we would publish SWP as a Note? Explanation of how this group of specifications is supposed to do together. And then we would plan to publish wm to CR because it's ready, we take AS2 to CR soon because it's ready.
rhiaro... That we wanted to do as much as we could to enable our documents to proceed to CR as quickly as possible because of the time constraints involved
rhiaro... There are criteria that we have figured out for when it's good to take things to CR, exit criteria, feature descriptions, test suite, those are good measures for when something is ready for CR
rhiaro... But as far as the if quesiton, I feel like that's something we resovled before and that if there's new information about why we should or should not atke something to CR we should talk about it, but I haven't heard that
rhiarocwebber: just briefly, I support any document going to CR when it's actually ready, but in the event that somehow webmention ended up going to CR before AS2 after all this work and being so close to CR I would really wonder what happened that we ended up that way
rhiaro... I heard before we can figure this out later, so those specs moved to ED, which set an expectation that these things wer eon the rec track, and now it's fair to say aaron did the work that is required to qualify for CR, and now we're saying do we really want to do this
rhiaroeprodrom: Ann thanks, yeah I am not interested in blocking webmention, I think it's a solid specification, excellent work, strong implementations
rhiaro... I feel like we've been asked to provide in our charter certain deliverables, from my point of view if I'd been asked to provide deliverables I'd want to either provide them or have an explanation about why I'm not
rhiaro... So I think that when we produce documents in a way that's going to be the first very visible thing we do to the rest of the world after a year and a half of work, it would be nice for us to have a story about what we're doing and how we're doing it
cwebber2(btw, if we voted on going to CR, I think the "put a blogpost on why we're including webmention and go to CR", I'd vote for that... I do think it's at a good stage and we've positioned the group to make space for it)
rhiaroArnaud: it sounds like that's a good quesiton to ponder over for next week, and we can resume the discussion next week, possibly with a proposal to move wm to CR on the agenda
annbassI appreciate Evan's desire and "push" that we have a coordinated understanding and presentation of how these components relate and will roll out
rhiaro... We have two proposals: they had come up and we had discussed them at our face to face and we had come up with resolutiosn at the face to face on these proposals
rhiaro... There was some discussion about adotoping one or another of the others, some concerns that there was potential for going down ratholes with that
rhiaro... In particular social relationships have a real culturual bias, what's defined as a friend, varies from platform to platform and culture to culture
rhiaroArnaud: The IG has been inactive for quite a while, and before that it was somewhat dormant despite ann's efforts, so ann is asking what should we do with the IG?
rhiaroannbass: i have mixed feelings because I don't watn the work we've done to be lost, but on the other hand as a chair I dont' want to pull teeth to try to carry the group along
rhiaro... When I came back I sent an email to the list and asked the group what they want to do, and I was proposing moving it to a CG because that's a bit less process and peopel who are not members of w3c can participate, and it seems to me for this subject there are a lot of peopel who are interested but who are not w3c members and as we know it's hard to be an IE and even harder to get your company or individual to be a member
rhiaro... One option is to appreciate the work that the IG has done up to this point, it has low participation now, and may have served its purpose so far
rhiarotantek: There's the federated social web CG before the SWWG, has low traffic and interest and hasnt' had a blog post in three years or something, don't know if there's a need for another one especially when there's an existing one with no critical mass
rhiaroSandro: I was looking at the tpac registration list of meetings the FSWCG is listed as meeting for 3 hours on the firs tmorning of tpac, organised by someone I don't know and have never heard of
ZakimAs of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, shevski, Arnaud, tantek, rhiaro, sandro, cwebber, eprodrom, tsyesika, KevinMarks, annbass
aaronpkwhat do people think about doing a 15-20min "state of the social web wg" session the morning of our f2f where our hosts could sit in on it and get a sense of what we're doing?
tantekhuh. this makes me wonder if the AB needs to take a look at CGs to see if some sort of explicit "garbage collection" (in the CS sense) is needed for defunct, inactive, or never active CGs.
sandroYes, like maybe people have to renew a CG every 6 months or it get flagged with a big INACTIVE. But you wouldn't want to shut them forever, because they own the name.
tantekthe problem is of the 239 current groups: https://www.w3.org/community/groups/ which ones are actually active? (if you're looking to get involved in W3C, this is one of the public entrypoints, and if you click on a bunch and see inactivity, it looks like a ghost town)
eprodromI think it might make sense to make an enumeration over these 4 things, but I don't know if that would preclude using other vocabularies like FOAF.
KevinMarks!tell eprodrom I see ("IsFollowing", "IsFollowedBy", "IsContact", "IsMember") which map to a subset of xfn rels , but no rel="me" equivalent (a widely used xfn case) - is that assumed to be covered elsewhere in as2?
Loqi Bgoering made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-05-03]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=98156&oldid=98155
vinny Hello all
aaronpk vinny: these are the specs the group is working on https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Drafts
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-social-irc
ben_thatmustbeme present+
Arnaud Approval of Minutes of 2016-04-26 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-04-26-minutes
KevinMarks present+
rhiaro eprodrom: When we first started working on this and the other parts of our suite, activitypub, AS2, micropub, we started progressing towards recommendation status with the idea that we would have this evolving process happen, some of them would end up as notes, some of them would never make it to cr, some of them would become cr
tantek sandro, didn't you say the existing https://www.w3.org/community/fedsocweb/ Federated Social Web Community Group asked for a time slot at the upcoming TPAC in Lisbon?
sandro The follow who scheduled the https://www.w3.org/community/fedsocweb meeting is the chair of https://www.w3.org/community/fedid so my guess is he just picked the wrong Federated Community Group. I've just emailed him, asking.