2016-10-18 UTC
timbl_ and jasnell joined the channel
# 02:53 strugee you all are fantastic and doing great work :) # 03:14 Loqi aaronpk has 1117 karma (63 in this channel) # 03:15 rhiaro Welp because I'm great at adapting to timezone changes with my magic sleep-any-time powers, I'm entirely not jetlagged, so the call being at 4am for me is going to be mildly disruptive after all :p jasnell joined the channel
# 04:22 strugee rhiaro: 'course! :) jasnell and GdelPuente joined the channel
# 08:48 GdelPuente Hello, my name is Guido del Puente a student at university Federico II in Naples, Italy. # 08:49 GdelPuente I'm working on a project about multimedia recommendation using social data. # 08:49 GdelPuente I landed on W3C Social Activity page. I found very intriguing the W3C Social Web Working Group's works. # 08:49 GdelPuente Where I can find papers about the state of art of the W3C "social standards"? # 08:49 GdelPuente Could you suggest me some other reading on the topic? I thank you in advance for your help. # 08:57 GdelPuente thanks a lot rhiaro GdelPuente, bengo and jasnell joined the channel
bengo joined the channel
# 14:44 ben_thatmustbeme heh, rhiaro, since you are actively editing things, i won't edit now so as not to step on your toes, but i think you makde an error in that last change timbl and tantek joined the channel
bengo, eprodrom and timbl joined the channel
# 16:59 eprodrom trackbot, start meeting RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim joined the channel
# 16:59 eprodrom It's not clear to me who's chairing today julien and bengo joined the channel
# 17:03 eprodrom Can someone step forward to scribe? # 17:03 julien can anyone share the dialin info? # 17:03 eprodrom scribenick: wilkie # 17:05 julien Unfortunately I have only 30minutes today :/ # 17:05 csarven is also in the timezone.. in fact like within miliseconds. tantek joined the channel
# 17:06 eprodrom tantek: will you be chairing today? I think you covered for me last week, so I was going to do it this week # 17:06 tantek eprodrom: sorry yes - since I'm gone for 2 weeks in Dec # 17:09 wilkie tantek: we have a list of things to review and it keeps getting longer. hopefully everyone had time to go through them # 17:09 Loqi rhiaro has 241 karma (130 in this channel) # 17:09 wilkie tantek: everyone has gone through the minutes then? # 17:09 wilkie tantek: let's do the Face-to-face minutes first since they are the earliest and fading in peoples memories as they get further in the past # 17:09 wilkie tantek: I don't see anyone objecting to approving the minutes # 17:10 wilkie tantek: let's declare that resolved then. those minutes are approved. KevinMarks joined the channel
# 17:11 wilkie tantek: ok. how about the minutes from 2 weeks ago. are people prepared to look at that and approve those? dmitriz joined the channel
# 17:12 wilkie tantek: looks pretty good and that we got most of the people on the call on that. let's call that resolved. # 17:12 wilkie tantek: and last week's minutes, which was a longer telecon than usual. # 17:13 eprodrom reviewreviewreview # 17:14 wilkie tantek: alright. first I should bring up our face-to-face meeting which is up in a month # 17:14 Loqi Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting at MIT (F2F8) # 17:14 wilkie tantek: please add yourself to the list of participants # 17:14 wilkie tantek: this will be the last face to face of the year and possibly the last for the group # 17:15 wilkie tantek: there is only me and ben and aaron right now # 17:15 wilkie tantek: I re-ordered one item on the list. these are things that were left-over from last week. # 17:15 wilkie tantek: I moved the pub-sub fpwd status to the top # 17:16 wilkie sandro: so, if you haven't refreshed, I requests LDN to be moved up # 17:16 wilkie tantek: alright, rhiaro, would you let us know what is going on with the pubsub fpwd # 17:16 wilkie rhiaro: of the last things is to send an email to the systems team to publish it and then it will be done # 17:17 julien Thanks Amy for the precious help! # 17:17 wilkie tantek: well that's a pretty big set of hurdles to get pubsub through in terms of process related and naming is probably the most challenging thing to get through # 17:17 Loqi julien has 2 karma (1 in this channel) # 17:17 Loqi julien has 3 karma (2 in this channel) # 17:17 wilkie tantek: thank you julien for your time and patience and keeping pubsub alive all these years and I appreciate all the effort you've put in # 17:17 Loqi rhiaro has 242 karma (131 in this channel) # 17:17 wilkie tantek: any questions about pubsub? any comments or issues? # 17:18 wilkie tantek: so we will move on to LDN and moving that from WD to CR # 17:19 wilkie rhiaro: we have one new issue since last week. this came from someone coming from i18n although not necessarily from that i18n group about the word 'inbox' and say you were an implementation of LDN related to emails and if you got a notification or error and used 'inbox' the meaning would be confusing. # 17:20 wilkie rhiaro: the thread is long and has our argument and there isn't quite a good word to use # 17:20 wilkie tantek: let's go to the queue as this is probably worth discussing # 17:20 wilkie tantek: the only thing I'll raise as a related issue is there was a rather long thread about a user story about inbox that we changed but that wasn't a specification where there may be reasoning to draw from # 17:21 ben_thatmustbeme we had discussion going back a year at least on "inbox" being a poor term. I remember discussing this at F2F at MIT i think last year or two years ago # 17:21 wilkie rhiaro: the user story was supposed to be a general description of what is happening where the terms weren't necessarily appropriate # 17:21 wilkie tantek: while I look for that issue I'll ack eprodrom # 17:22 wilkie eprodrom: on this topic, there don't seem to be great alternatives to 'inbox'. twitter calls it a 'home timeline' and on facebook calls it a 'feed' and other systems that call it an 'inbox' # 17:22 wilkie eprodrom: I understand there are tricky bits to it but it seems not worse than other names. # 17:22 wilkie eprodrom: what I'm say is that there aren't great alternatives. cwebber2` joined the channel
# 17:22 wilkie rhiaro: right, that's what I thought. as 'inbox' is confusing for the context of emails, but other alternatives as 'feed' are equally confusing. # 17:23 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme on the speaker queue # 17:23 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber on the speaker queue # 17:23 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber on the speaker queue # 17:23 wilkie eprodrom: the tricky part is if this is Amy's 'feed' the difference between what things Amy has published vs. what other's have published and that can be confusing to everybody # 17:24 wilkie ben_thatmustbeme: if this is specific to LDN can we name it something related to LDN? like "notifications-inbox" or something to make it specific to that stack. # 17:24 wilkie rhiaro: we are aligning with activitypub to align things with pump.io # 17:24 wilkie ben_thatmustbeme: but this takes the place of that section in activitypub # 17:25 wilkie rhiaro: but activitypub refers to inbox as well and has 'outbox'. cwebber2 also mentions that. I don't think it is worth that effort to change it. # 17:25 wilkie rhiaro: and other people from the i18n group also replied and don't think this is an issue # 17:26 wilkie rhiaro: it came up on their call in the last 5 minutes # 17:26 tantek I can't seem to find the giant github thread re: inbox in user-story # 17:26 wilkie sandro: rhiaro, do you want a resolution on this issue from the group? # 17:26 wilkie cwebber2: I want to weigh in and say we are in a space where it is hard to overload terms # 17:26 wilkie cwebber2: for instance, "object" is a very overloaded term we use in this space. and "actor" and you can say it is already defined in "actor model" and such. # 17:27 sandro renames inbox to 7f486ef4-b534-4cfd-b1ac-85396da6e23c # 17:27 rhiaro PROPOSAL: Close LDN issue 52 without change as there isn't a better term that makes it worth changing at this point # 17:27 aaronpk that's what flickr did with their early oauth prototype... they had "frobs" which were "flickr objects" # 17:27 wilkie cwebber2: avoiding this seems very difficult and our goal should be to define exactly what these terms mean and that's what these specifications do. # 17:27 Loqi sandro has 36 karma (31 in this channel) # 17:27 wilkie tantek: I'm seeing some censensus within the group and see nobody rejecting and ben_thatmustbeme raised a question and seems to be answered # 17:28 wilkie tantek: does anybody object? well, if you do object, put a minus 1, and for this a plus 1 and if you don't care a 0 # 17:28 wilkie tantek: not seeing objections, seeing all positives, so let's resolve this # 17:28 wilkie tantek: I did find the minutes of when we discussed the naming of inbox and it was a year ago # 17:29 wilkie tantek: not that it matters. there's no need to make changes here, there's just more background. # 17:29 rhiaro RESOLVED: Close LDN issue 52 without change as there isn't a better term that makes it worth changing at this point # 17:29 wilkie rhiaro: on that note, I don't think we have any outstanding issues. # 17:29 wilkie rhiaro: we have a security issue but I think that's wrapped up. # 17:30 wilkie rhiaro: it is worth mentioning that there are 9 implementations and input on github from 21 people not in the group # 17:31 wilkie rhiaro: and csarven and I have something we are working on presenting and getting email feedback from that # 17:31 tantek notes an opportunity to add an Oxford comma here: "senders, receivers or consumers" :) # 17:31 wilkie rhiaro: on that note, I'd like to propose to take LDN to CR at the next available opportunity # 17:31 wilkie tantek: seems like we got the issues resolved and that is a great number of implementations to go to CR with so thank you for getting that done # 17:31 wilkie tantek: as discussed at the face-to-face you've taken care of the wide review # 17:32 wilkie tantek: as far as conformance classes and criteria you've done that. do you have a test suite? # 17:32 wilkie rhiaro: we have a lot of that but the user facing since has some work, but the bulk of it, yes # 17:32 wilkie tantek: do you have a page with the status of that? # 17:33 wilkie rhiaro: it is just an empty page at the moment # 17:33 wilkie tantek: another thing you can add is a placeholder for implementation reports # 17:34 wilkie sandro: if they were both on github I could star them and be notified of changes. although if I had an LDN client I guess I would be! but I don't have a client # 17:34 wilkie rhiaro: yeah, we'll get that all linked before the CR # 17:34 wilkie tantek: those are the only things I'm seeing that are missing: the links to where the test suite will be and a rough statement "the test suite is coming" and the implementation reports and where they will be # 17:35 wilkie tantek: that's all that is missing and those are editorial changes we could say would take you only a day or two # 17:35 wilkie tantek: sandro and I are just looking at things we will be asked at the transition call # 17:35 wilkie tantek: ok, let's do it. make a proposal to take LDN to CR # 17:37 wilkie eprodrom: I have a question that may come up in the CR meeting... do we have something in there that links to social web protocols / other specs? # 17:37 Loqi csarven has -31 karma (7 in this channel) # 17:37 Loqi rhiaro has 243 karma (132 in this channel) # 17:37 wilkie tantek: thank you csarven and rhiaro for your hard work. I know you wanted to take it to CR at the face-to-face and now what you are taking to CR is stronger. # 17:37 Loqi csarven has -30 karma (8 in this channel) # 17:38 wilkie tantek: that takes us to eprodrom and getting back to your issue or question about social web procotols about the relation to LDN and pubsub? # 17:38 tantek Next topic: relation between LDN and PubSub - is it documented in SWP? # 17:38 wilkie eprodrom: yeah, to answer questions about when we have more than one protocol in the use case area. if they are taken care of in social web protocols is that fine? # 17:39 wilkie rhiaro: I still have to get social web protocols caught up with pub sub. # 17:39 wilkie rhiaro: and adding LDN and subscribing to notifications. LDN only deals with delivery and not subscribing and we talked about PuSH as a method of subscribing and that helps us a bit. # 17:39 wilkie rhiaro: there will be certainly a blow-by-blow alignment in social web protocols but not necessarily LDN # 17:40 wilkie tantek: I think we could have a section in Social web protocols that mention this that would be good as something we could link to to help us in that transition call if we should need it # 17:40 wilkie tantek: I'll let you track that issue yourself # 17:40 wilkie tantek: I think we are now done with LDN, yes? any other questions? # 17:41 wilkie tantek: sandro, since rhiaro is the author do you want to take the staff role? # 17:41 wilkie tantek: alright, rhiaro, you have a lot on your plate # 17:42 wilkie tantek: if we can group with another CR, great, if not, we might want to do it sooner than later since the time for the group is running out. # 17:42 tantek Next topic: Webmention CR->PR status - aaronpk # 17:42 wilkie tantek: that takes us to webmention CR to PR status # 17:42 wilkie aaronpk: not much new. I did look in to the two features in the list that only have 1 implementation # 17:42 wilkie aaronpk: I looked around at implementations that didn't submit a report and found 1 that did add this feature # 17:43 wilkie aaronpk: which is good but I asked them to submit a report but don't know how long it will take for them to do that # 17:43 wilkie aaronpk: don't know if we can count that implementation without a report # 17:43 wilkie aaronpk: the other feature, I don't know of any person that is doing that. not sure what to do there. # 17:43 wilkie aaronpk: it doesn't affect interoperability, so maybe we can get around that that way. # 17:43 wilkie aaronpk: it doesn't affect interoperability at all, so I'm looking at advice for those. # 17:44 aaronpk "Receivers may periodically re-verify Webmentions and update them." # 17:44 wilkie tantek: that sounds normative but optional. if you can add a note to the report stating what you just stated... that gets you to 2 implementations or just 1? # 17:44 wilkie aaronpk: just one but that feature doesn't affect interoperability # 17:45 wilkie tantek: right. well, "MAY" is optional so we need to know somebody implements that so if you document that # 17:45 wilkie aaronpk: no, I haven't found a second but I found a second implementation of the first and it is open source and I can link to it # 17:46 wilkie tantek: ok, but they are both optional. that first one is probably more important to document you have 2 implementations # 17:46 wilkie tantek: ok, the only remaining thing in that list is "errata process" # 17:46 wilkie tantek: so, aaronpk, what is your process to document errata # 17:46 wilkie tantek: so, that's accepting, but how will you deal with issues? # 17:47 wilkie aaronpk: in the absence of the working group, is there any ability to spec? # 17:47 wilkie tantek: you won't be able to publish updates to the recommendation so that's why we work to resolve these now # 17:48 wilkie aaronpk: let's say that errata are published on webmention.net after they go through github issues # 17:48 wilkie tantek: ok, if you can pick a URL to say "this is where errata will be published" and link to that in the header like many w3c specs have a link to where they expect to find errata # 17:49 wilkie tantek: in terms of processing them since we won't have a group to resolve conflicts you may want to document on webmention.net or elsewhere what your process is for handling issues # 17:49 wilkie tantek: great question. this is an area that is evolving at w3c. many groups are having various success with varying methods. sandro, do you have opinions? # 17:50 wilkie tantek: what is a good process for raising and processing issues after the group is closed? what are good processes you've seen? # 17:50 ben_thatmustbeme would this be a good time to discuss community group as a continuation for the group? # 17:51 wilkie sandro: I've seen two depending if there is staff or not. I've seen a wiki or repo that gathers issues and a community group... having a public list where a public space can comment on that and reflecting consensus when they see it # 17:51 wilkie tantek: much like aaronpk had discussed and have github issues-- # 17:51 wilkie sandro: as long as people aren't just closing issues # 17:52 wilkie tantek: so as now issues can't be closed other than by the person that raised them or group consensus # 17:53 wilkie tantek: I'm looking for explicit documentation about where errata issues are documented and discussed and a process. and if you think this is good, you use this or come up with something else and you write that down and link to that URL. # 17:53 wilkie tantek: so people can look at that errata and know what has changed since the spec # 17:53 wilkie aaronpk: and that goes somewhere in the spec? # 17:54 wilkie sandro: actually it is in the template and it is in the header and respec will do that you just say what that errata url is # 17:54 wilkie tantek: yeah, respec should have that and that will show what the process is and the spec only has that one thing it links to # 17:55 wilkie sandro: if you look at existing specs they will have an errata section above the abstract # 17:55 wilkie eprodrom: I think what we are saying is that there will be an errata document that will be linked from the spec # 17:55 wilkie eprodrom: I guess I'm confused about access to github... can we put an errata document on github and link to that and still have access when the group closes? # 17:56 wilkie sandro: we can keep the access to github, yeah # 17:56 wilkie eprodrom: so linking to github will be sufficient for errata? # 17:56 wilkie tantek: yeah. github seems like a reasonable place to put that. unless there are clear objections, I would put that choice to the editors # 17:56 wilkie tantek: but once the group closes the errata doesn't have an official standing # 17:57 wilkie eprodrom: what has tradionally happened with errata in other specs? # 17:57 wilkie eprodrom: is there a treshold? where something is so clearly unimplementable that we need a 1.1 version of the spec or do they just pile up? # 17:57 wilkie tantek: both things have happened. sometimes a working group starts back up to review and publish new documents and there are processes where you can amend a document # 17:58 wilkie sandro: I don't think so. it has to be approved by an advisory group so I think there needs to be a working group # 17:58 wilkie tantek: I believe the staff can do that. it still goes to an advisory committee can do but staff can do that in absense of a group? # 17:59 wilkie tantek: you don't want to do it for editorial things but as eprodrom said, severe things may be sufficient reasons to request w3c staff time to through this process # 17:59 wilkie tantek: sounds like once the links are added, we have what we need for a PR transition call, right sandro? # 18:00 wilkie sandro: going from CR to PR... yes. it may be just a mailing list thing... sometimes people make the call that a meeting isn't necessary # 18:00 wilkie tantek: if we missed any details, I'm sure people will bring them up # 18:00 wilkie sandro: do we need details about things that aren't implemented? # 18:01 wilkie aaronpk: everything is implemented and there is one feature that only has 1 implementation # 18:01 wilkie sandro: we aren't worried because that is an optional feature # 18:01 wilkie sandro: well let's note that so they know that this is the justification # 18:02 wilkie tantek: right, and so anyone whether or not it is the director can see that justification and know why we decided to push this forward # 18:02 sandro +1 since the WG is satisfied with the level of implementation # 18:02 bengo q+ to ask "What part of the Social WG chartered deliverables does Webmention fulfill?" It's mentioned as possible input to "A Web protocol to allow the federation of activity-based status updates and other data". Webmention alone isn't that. ActivityPub is closer, but doesn't mention activitypub # 18:02 wilkie tantek: and if we need a call... can we piggyback that with LDN? # 18:02 Zakim bengo, you wanted to ask "What part of the Social WG chartered deliverables does Webmention fulfill?" It's mentioned as possible input to "A Web protocol to allow the federation of # 18:02 Zakim ... activity-based status updates and other data". Webmention alone isn't that. ActivityPub is closer, but doesn't mention activitypub # 18:03 wilkie bengo: is webmention the federation part of our charter? where does it sit in regarding the charter deliverables # 18:03 wilkie sandro: my answer is that we have gone with multiple solutions because we didn't have consensus and that LDN and webmention are both solutions for federation bengo joined the channel
# 18:04 Zakim Present: eprodrom, aaronpk, rhiaro, csarven, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, julien, +, bengo, tantek, sandro, !, Benjamin_Young # 18:04 Zakim On IRC I see bengo, cwebber2, dmitriz, KevinMarks, tantek, Zakim, RRSAgent, timbl, eprodrom, jasnell, shepazu, strugee, csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, pdurbin, raucao, wilkie, # 18:04 Zakim ... bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, ElijahLynn, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, rhiaro, wseltzer, sandro, trackbot # 18:04 wilkie tantek: any other concerns? I'm not sure if we lost csarven and rhiaro # 18:04 bengo (for my record, I mean't "ActivityPub is closer to [a complete federation protocol] but doesn't mention webmention) # 18:04 wilkie tantek: this is our first PR. I was hoping to get people on the record. if there are any questions or comments to get those documented # 18:04 rhiaro That was missing a while ago, and we said all our specs would. I forget if that was resolved # 18:05 wilkie eprodrom: we need to add to the proposal to add that we need to add the errata link # 18:05 wilkie eprodrom: right, ok. in the past we've had to add edits at some point # 18:05 wilkie tantek: these are editorial edits and either I or sandro at some point would just let those edits through # 18:05 wilkie sandro: it can't actually go through the process without it # 18:06 wilkie tantek: I think we can declare this resolved. I see no objections. most of the folks here are saying plus 1 # 18:06 wilkie tantek: I assume we need a similar wiki page for the CR transition request for the PR transition request # 18:06 Loqi aaronpk has 1121 karma (64 in this channel) # 18:07 Loqi aaronpk has 1122 karma (65 in this channel) # 18:07 wilkie tantek: aaronpk, if you can start that page on the wiki and rhiaro and I can make sure we have all our 't's crossed before we take it to the director # 18:07 rhiaro julien et al, PubSub publication request sent, should be on track for Thursday # 18:07 wilkie tantek: reminder: last week we reserved 90 minutes for this call. I realize we are 7 minutes over our normally scheduled time # 18:08 wilkie aaronpk: lots of progress since last week. the test suite now has tests for each feature # 18:08 wilkie aaronpk: it has a tool to add your own endpoint and run the tests # 18:08 wilkie aaronpk: things like adding posts, querying the endpoint, testing authentication, etc # 18:09 wilkie aaronpk: I request that anybody who is interested go check it out # 18:09 wilkie aaronpk: you can submit the implementation report from the tool itself to save people from the process of filling out the github thing # 18:09 wilkie aaronpk: the way it works is that it automatically checks off the features as it goes # 18:09 wilkie aaronpk: here is my implementation report and you can see the list of features my implementation supports # 18:09 wilkie aaronpk: and this URL shows the full list of reports # 18:10 wilkie aaronpk: and this is how we can compare which features have implementations # 18:10 wilkie aaronpk: I just finished this and so there aren't any reports except for mine so I have to work on getting people to submit them # 18:10 wilkie aaronpk: the new CR draft went up this morning based on the call last week # 18:11 wilkie tantek: ok. that's good. that means we have a new 4 week CR period starting today. ending 4 weeks from today. # 18:11 wilkie tantek: so we have to wait at least until then until we propose going to PR # 18:11 wilkie aaronpk: and that date is November 10th which is a week before our face-to-face # 18:12 wilkie tantek: congrats on your implementation reports and you have 4 weeks to get those implementation reports from other people # 18:12 wilkie tantek: the more you can get from outside the group the better # 18:12 wilkie tantek: if you want to prepare in advance, just as you are for webmention, if you document the errata process that will check that off as well # 18:12 wilkie aaronpk: I'll do the same for micropub as I do for webmention # 18:12 wilkie tantek: seems like nothing else to do here. should we bring it back up in 2 weeks? or sooner? # 18:13 wilkie aaronpk: I'm happy to give a short status update every week. basically just an update on the number of implementation reports # 18:13 wilkie tantek: that's fine just as document status so we have more time for documents that need more discussion # 18:13 wilkie tantek: alright, good progress and we'll see how the reports go # 18:13 wilkie tantek: any questions? to be clear: no PR until 4 weeks from today. # 18:14 wilkie aaronpk: I would like to do the vote for PR at the face-to-face since the time will be up by then # 18:14 wilkie tantek: ok. you can add that to the topics for the face-to-face then # 18:14 wilkie eprodrom: running through our checklist for PR status, the most important is the issues and any open normative issues # 18:14 wilkie eprodrom: we have only editorial issues except one normative issue we talked about already # 18:15 wilkie eprodrom: this changes a requirement from MAY to SHOULD and we talked about it and decided it won't take the same effort to redo the editorial process # 18:15 wilkie eprodrom: as far as issues are concerned we are doing well. I do need to clean out editorial issues # 18:15 wilkie eprodrom: I can do that over the next week or so # 18:16 wilkie eprodrom: we have a couple of comments that are still waiting for a reply from the commenter... I believe we said around 30 days for those if there is no response? # 18:16 wilkie eprodrom: so it may be time to start to wrap those up # 18:16 wilkie eprodrom: rhiaro has done a couple of those so I don't know if we should wrap those up or not # 18:16 wilkie tantek: sooner is better... if we need a changes it would reset the clock # 18:17 wilkie eprodrom: we have a couple of requests that we decided, for example markup in the name where the poster wanted markup in the name but we decided in the group not to do that and we are waiting for their response # 18:17 wilkie eprodrom: we decided we would wait. I'm happy closing without the response. # 18:17 wilkie eprodrom: both the ones we have outstanding we decided not to implement are not normative changes # 18:18 wilkie tantek: what we need with these issues is a comment "the working group decided <whatever the resolution was>" and a link to show our due dilligence to show to the director that we resolved this issue and the commenter didn't respond or disagreed # 18:19 wilkie eprodrom: I can do that. that's probably the best way to do it for now # 18:19 wilkie eprodrom: the other question is whether or not we had features not covered by test document # 18:19 wilkie eprodrom: everything we marked as a "feature" is covered by a test document and covered by the validator # 18:19 wilkie eprodrom: I think we have sufficient test coverage there to say we are testing all the features # 18:20 wilkie eprodrom: that was a big step and we are past that # 18:20 wilkie eprodrom: the last big item for us is implementations and implementation reports # 18:20 rhiaro I can do an implementation report for my site # 18:20 wilkie eprodrom: we will have 2 reports from the editors and we are looking for reports on public implementations such as pump.io and mediagoblin # 18:21 wilkie eprodrom: we have a couple of incoming notifications on incoming implementations and am not sure they will be complete before we move to PR # 18:21 wilkie eprodrom: one was from Twitter which is exciting and another open source one # 18:21 wilkie eprodrom: we will likely have around 5 implementations # 18:21 wilkie tantek: did I hear correctly? we expect Twitter to implement AS2? # 18:21 wilkie eprodrom: yes. this was an incoming request from Twitter that said they would implement AS2 # 18:22 bengo investigating is different that "we expect" # 18:22 wilkie eprodrom: I didn't hold them to this to ask "how would this be used" but yes, it was incoming from Twitter engineernig # 18:22 wilkie sandro: I think it would be worth waiting if it gets them on board with the announcement # 18:22 wilkie sandro: and say "hey, would you like to be involved in the press for this?" and hold off a bit # 18:23 wilkie eprodrom: yeah. I'll be as straight-forward as possible; this was not from high-level people from Twitter. It was Twitter engineers saying yeah we want to implement this. KevinMarks joined the channel
# 18:23 wilkie sandro: traditionally, around the time your are at PR and go to REC, you get testimonials. # 18:24 wilkie sandro: even if they haven't implemented it but they are willing to say they are looking at it, that's still a win-win there # 18:24 wilkie eprodrom: I would be reluctant to get an annoucement from Twitter but would be happy to reach out to those who reached out to me and see if they want to give a testimonial. # 18:24 wilkie sandro: and if they tweet about it, we could just link to the tweet # 18:25 wilkie tantek: and, yeah, try to get a course understanding if they want to implement this in a month or three months or just looking at it it helps us decide how to follow up on it # 18:25 wilkie tantek: and then you aren't getting a committment but rather a rough idea # 18:25 wilkie tantek: if they say 1 month, ok, we can get an implementation report. just to set up expectations # 18:25 wilkie tantek: is there a link to the current implementation reports? # 18:25 wilkie eprodrom: right now we don't have reports in the repo. it is in the same spot but no reports are in there # 18:26 wilkie eprodrom: we are waiting on reports from current implementers # 18:26 wilkie tantek: and a report summary. when you have many reports... like aaronpk-- can you drop a link to your report summary? # 18:27 wilkie tantek: something like that. like a list of features or a test of the feature so we can see who got them and who supports them. # 18:27 wilkie tantek: and the implementations from editors and people in the group and people outside the group to show the director # 18:27 wilkie tantek: something to consider. it is not a requirement, it just helps # 18:27 rhiaro q+ to request another (up to) 15 minutes to make sure we fit AP in # 18:27 wilkie tantek: and if you want to get a leg up, the errata process as well # 18:28 Zakim rhiaro, you wanted to request another (up to) 15 minutes to make sure we fit AP in # 18:28 wilkie tantek: as rhiaro mentions, we only have a few minutes left so I'll ask cwebber2 how much time he wants # 18:28 wilkie cwebber2: I would like the group's feedback on if we can get to CR # 18:28 wilkie tantek: are folks able to go another 15 minutes? # 18:29 wilkie tantek: thanks to wilkie for being awesome (paraphrasing) # 18:29 wilkie tantek: cwebber2 walk us through what's next for activitypub to CR # 18:29 wilkie cwebber2: we did get so much feedback and tried to incorporate everything # 18:29 wilkie cwebber2: I think we got through all the issues worth addressing bengo joined the channel
# 18:30 wilkie cwebber2: still 19 issues open but I think they are all editorial with exception of #156 which was said to be a blocking for activity pub support on some existing implementations # 18:30 wilkie cwebber2: as in if patrick stewart publishes a mention to 1 million subscribers that servers don't get overloaded exchanging that # 18:31 wilkie cwebber2: we have a solution that diaspora seems to support but friendica hasn't responded # 18:31 wilkie cwebber2: someone in #155 mentions adding a history feature which sounds awesome but getting it right in this small timeframe would be difficult given the time and it would work as an extension # 18:31 wilkie cwebber2: I think we addressed the major issues. there is feedback I still want to record from the wide review. # 18:32 wilkie cwebber2: I don't have the test plan but I could have it by the CR call # 18:32 wilkie cwebber2: I could describe it briefly if that helps # 18:32 wilkie tantek: I think we need a link to where the test suite will go and at that link describe the test plan description # 18:33 wilkie tantek: there is confidence in the group that you can summarize what you would say there and point the director to that during the call and say we don't have it yet but this is how we would develop it in CR # 18:33 wilkie tantek: I'm looking at the issues submitted to activitypub and congrats on the issues from outside the group. it is better to get those than not. good sign. congrats on that. # 18:34 wilkie tantek: looking at the open issues, half of them seem editorial but the rest don't seem obviously editorial and that's something to resolve before moving forward KevinMarks2 joined the channel
# 18:34 wilkie cwebber2: a number of them *are* editorial but you're right we haven't proven they are editorial # 18:34 wilkie cwebber2: should we postpone moving to CR until next week? # 18:35 wilkie tantek: just by looking at that, it would be hard to say to the director "hey we resolved these issues" and it would be hard to explain away these open issues that aren't marked editorial # 18:35 wilkie tantek: I think the director would push back on that to get the issues marked accordingly # 18:35 wilkie sandro: I haven't looked the issues so I don't know how to judge exactly # 18:36 wilkie tantek: if it was one or two issues then we could take the burden of explaining those # 18:36 wilkie sandro: we should have all the issues closed before we request # 18:37 wilkie tantek: the challenge here is to provide some reasoning. even if you pass the director and go to CR, the issues these would pose would lead us to go to CR again and slow us down at getting through CR # 18:37 wilkie tantek: let's try to reduce that chance.. that's the goal # 18:37 wilkie cwebber2: I managed to churn through a substantial number of issues last week. so I should be able to get through these by next week. let's postpone. # 18:38 wilkie tantek: that's regarding issues. so, you will add the link to the test suite and summary. # 18:38 wilkie tantek: sounds like you have many folks actively implementing? # 18:38 wilkie tantek: do you have an expected number of implementations to know how many reports you'd get? # 18:39 wilkie cwebber2: my estimate is at least mediagoblin, the implementations I've done, rhiaro's implementation, someone else's implementation, and pump.io are at least 5 # 18:39 wilkie tantek: diaspora and friendica... any chance of reports from them? # 18:39 wilkie cwebber2: it is unlikely diaspora will implement within the short time of this group # 18:39 wilkie cwebber2: they are pushing hard on their own protocol. there are folks there that seem open to implementing it in diaspora and filing issues, and it is pivoting toward that but not fast enough for this group # 18:40 wilkie cwebber2: more likely in friendica because they implement everything # 18:40 wilkie tantek: any other implementations you are seeing as potential outside of the working group? # 18:40 rhiaro There are some individuals in Edinburgh who are looking at AP # 18:40 wilkie tantek: oh ok. I was counting eprodrom in that but I guess they are outside the group at this point # 18:40 wilkie cwebber2: yeah, depends. but eprodrom hasn't worked on that in a while so # 18:40 wilkie eprodrom: yeah, I will be involved in that implementation, sorry! # 18:41 wilkie eprodrom: I want to say that it would be a clean-room implementation but no, sorry # 18:41 wilkie tantek: would rather that than not, so thanks eprodrom # 18:41 wilkie cwebber2: I don't know at this point who outside of the group # 18:41 wilkie tantek: that's something we can work on. that's ok. I'm just going to keep asking the question so we continue to work on it # 18:41 wilkie tantek: I think we know what to do to get activitypub closer to CR for next week? # 18:42 wilkie tantek: perhaps you can start the wiki page for the CR transition request? # 18:42 wilkie tantek: that template can also remind you of additional details # 18:42 wilkie tantek: I'm also thinking about other details we can get going in parallel while these issues are resolved # 18:42 wilkie tantek: alright, this is one I'd like to carry forward to next week's agenda and get it closer to CR # 18:43 wilkie tantek: ok. that takes us to the end of discussion items and we have a minute left in our extended telecon time # 18:44 wilkie tantek: anyone else have any questions regarding document status or other business # 18:44 eprodrom Looooooong meeting # 18:44 wilkie tantek: thanks everyone. this was a long meeting. I'm going to say that we should mark out 90 minutes for next week # 18:44 wilkie tantek: probably only use 60 but if you could block out 90 minutes, that would be appreciated # 18:45 wilkie eprodrom: I have to check. I'll let you know over email # 18:45 wilkie sandro: if we could talk more seriously about pubsub and how close we are to PR on that # 18:45 wilkie sandro: yeah, CR, sorry. test suites and such. # 18:45 wilkie tantek: good point. julien, are you on the call? # 18:45 wilkie sandro: he said he could only be on for 30 minutes so I assume not # 18:46 wilkie tantek: ok. I'll add these to items to the agenda. # 18:46 aaronpk *whew* well maybe now that micropub.rocks is done i can start a test suite for pubsub :) # 18:46 wilkie tantek: aaronpk just volunteered to work on a test suite on pubsub # 18:46 wilkie tantek: well we'll put your name on that item now # 18:46 wilkie tantek: thanks everyone. good luck with all of your tasks # 18:53 tantek also congrats to both aaronpk on resolution to take webmention to PR, and rhiaro & csarven on resolution to take LDN to CR! thank you for all your diligent hard work. # 18:53 Loqi aaronpk has 1123 karma (66 in this channel) # 18:53 Loqi rhiaro has 244 karma (133 in this channel) # 18:53 Loqi csarven has -30 karma (9 in this channel) # 18:54 tantek csarven, it's been really impressive to see the rapid progress on LDN. # 18:55 aaronpk heh yeah, i've been spending day job amounts of time on this the past several weeks # 18:56 csarven aaronpk: It will pay off. see step 3 in the profit model # 18:57 csarven It goes without saying but the best part of us doing all this is that we want to use it # 18:58 aaronpk having these test tools has also helped my own implementations as well # 18:59 rhiaro This determination to implement our own protocols has meant my website has been broken more times in the last year than ever before! # 18:59 csarven Having the spec itself also help me iron out my implementation. The tests will probably help even more. KjetilK joined the channel
# 19:20 tantek rhiaro: I forgot to request during the call, could you prepare an update to Social Web Protocols to go out on Thursday since PubSub is going to FPWD? # 19:21 tantek I suppose that may have to just be an editor's draft update, until we can resolve to publish an update to SWP on next week's telcon # 19:23 rhiaro Feel free to remind me if I don't seem to have done it by thursday # 19:24 rhiaro Gonna send out transition requests for ldn and webmention then go to sleeeep # 19:24 tantek Yes - will be great if we can do those in the same telcon # 19:36 tantek rhiaro: oh dear - hope you get some sleep and feel better # 19:46 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been eprodrom, aaronpk, rhiaro, csarven, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, julien, +, bengo, tantek, sandro, !, Benjamin_Young bengo joined the channel
# 20:16 tantek I'm going to guess rhiaro because she needed resolutions to cite to schedule transition calls and such # 20:16 wilkie I'm just now getting the time to do it. I'll fix them up though # 20:17 rhiaro Trying to tap into the last of my energy reserves bengo joined the channel
# 20:18 Loqi rhiaro has 245 karma (134 in this channel) timbl joined the channel
strugee heya
rhiaro You could read http://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols as a starting point describing our ongoing work
Loqi Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-10-18]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=100509&oldid=100380
ben_thatmustbeme heh, rhiaro, since you are actively editing things, i won't edit now so as not to step on your toes, but i think you makde an error in that last change
tantek We have a lot of minutes (including from the f2f) to review and approve today, if you have some time before the call, please review and note any changes / edits needed! https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-18#Approval_of_Minutes
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-social-irc
aaronpk what is not clear? it says tantek here https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-18
wilkie rhiaro: we have one new issue since last week. this came from someone coming from i18n although not necessarily from that i18n group about the word 'inbox' and say you were an implementation of LDN related to emails and if you got a notification or error and used 'inbox' the meaning would be confusing.
bigbluehat present+ Benjamin_Young