rhiarosandro: In my mind that seems *noise* this group, that there is very little industry interest in what we're doing. Unfortunate and would be nice if we could figure out how to change it but has been the case for a long time now
rhiarotantek: just from a process perspective, makes it much harder to propose rechartering, we used w3c resources paid for by members, so makes it hard to justify continunig the wg when there are no members participating
rhiarotantek: when there is insufficient member interest the w3c typically recommends becoming a CG or IG which don't take up as much resources, but allows anyone who is interested to continue having some w3c related forum to discuss these things
tanteksorry for the charter sidetrack - I wanted to make sure people are thinking about it, because end of charter also affects how we decide to move forward or not with our documents in progress.
rhiaro... We had agreed 2 weeks ago to push forward with the CR. Amy and sandro did a lot of work last week getting the document in shape for publication
rhiaro... then we can look at results, and hopefully go to rec. Or possibly do revisions which we don't really have time to do, but maybe some quick one
rhiarotantek: Sandro covered most of it. 3 basic things - outreach to developer community, now is the time to update implementations. this is ready fo rlive development and use
rhiaro... They may require normative substantive changes. Usually a good sign, means that developers are digging into the spec and finding things that none of us found
rhiaro... Third thing is that we need to complete the test suite, or declare that we have, which I don't think we have, but basically say everything in the spec we have at est for and we need implementations to do those tests and fill out an implementation report
rhiaroeprodrom: What we have for the test suite, two sides, one is the validator, which lets publishers check and see if what theyre publishing is valid as2
rhiarotantek: when we reach the end of CR, we can evaluate the reports, if we have two or more implementations of every feature that's great, but if that's not the case we have multiple options at that point, including potentially dropping features
rhiaro... It will merit discussion on the part of the working group, especially as our time dwindles, the chances of us exiting CR with this spec is greater if we drop features than wait for implementations, if it comes to that
rhiaro... Some of those are now incorporated into the latest ED, some still need to be done, but I'm wondering what we need to do about this, are we planning on publishing a new CR with these changes? What's the timeline on that? What should we plan on?
rhiarosandro: we should do them as soon as possible. If the question is whether to wait ... if we know exactly which changes, do we wait for other possible changes too before reissuing CR?
rhiaro... the way it was worded in the CR draft was that it's a normative reference, which we should have caught because we can't actually normatively reference it
rhiarotantek: in response to do we wait for more issues. Micropub has been CR for 3 weeks or so. Have you received any new issues from implementors that are normative?
rhiaroaaronpk: there's a handful of issues, cweiske took a look at it and is implelmenting a server. they look like clarifications. I don't think they're normative changes
rhiarosandro: the way ralph would interpret it is whether there's need for particular people that would affect. If it would affect implementers, are they okay iwth it
rhiaroaaronpk: Okay. I suspect theres going to be some that I can just incoroprate and close without worrying about existing implementations. I think some will affect implementations. My homework for this week will be to categorise thsee issues
rhiaro... And about AS2 as well, until we have a complete test suite for all the features, as you create tests you find that the spec wording is not entirely as you intended and so requires changes to its wording
rhiaro... I know evan is already on it, encourage to evaluate the completeness of the test suite for as2. For micropub as well, the sooner you're able to produce a complete test suite the greater the confidence that we as a group are able to epxress that every feature has been expressed ina test so is testable so is written properly
rhiaroaaronpk: I noticed that as2 took the i18n and incoropriated the unicode rather than adding a new property. That made it through the draft and is in CR now
aaronpktantek, yes those are mostly feedback from cweiske that I mentioned earlier. I will be reviewing those and tagging any that need group feedback for next call
rhiarotantek: we should consider... if we are, and I think we should optimistically presume we have implementors implementing all of our CRs, we should have consistency with these kinds of details
rhiaroaaronpk: I do believe that finishing the test suite will probably lead to more changes in the spec, so I don't knwo if it's worth planning on publishing two new CRs or if I should wait until the test suite to publish a new CR
rhiaro... if it's like a week or two then we can wait, but if it's like a month then it might be worth doing a CR now or in a week when you can incoroprate that issue
rhiaro... When we explain what the difference is, that we're doing a new CR based on resovling horizongal review issues, the director should be very supportive in my opinion
rhiarocwebber: No update on spec from last time, but implementation stuff I'm pressing very hard on and have most of the client to server stuff in place, and a separate client being developed
tantekaaronpk another approach (rather than long email) is to break your long email into a set of self-contained atomic github issues on the current draft, with pull requests for any changes you suggest
tantekrhiaro: added you as a staff contact which I believe is accurate yes? please double check affiliation for that purpose and feel free to add parenthetical dates (like we did for Harry in the past) https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Social_Web_Working_Group
@jasnell Activity Streams 2.0 has (finally) reached W3C Candidate Recommendation status. https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/ (twitter.com/_/status/773152468850966529)
sandro missing agenda https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-06 does not bode well
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/06-social-irc
eprodrom Oh right
aaronpk this must be out of sync then https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Future_Meetings
rhiaro ... I know evan is already on it, encourage to evaluate the completeness of the test suite for as2. For micropub as well, the sooner you're able to produce a complete test suite the greater the confidence that we as a group are able to epxress that every feature has been expressed ina test so is testable so is written properly
tantek aaronpk, when I look at https://github.com/w3c/Micropub/issues I see plenty of open issues
ben_thatmustbeme See you all then