#social 2017-02-28
2017-02-28 UTC
# 
pdurbin https://shindig.apache.org says it's retired.
ben_thatmustbeme, timbl, strugee, fabrixxm and Mart joined the channel
# cwebber hi
bengo joined the channel
# 
ben_thatmustbeme good morning
RRSAgent joined the channel
# 
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/28-social-irc
Zakim joined the channel
# bengo present+
# ben_thatmustbeme present+
# cwebber present+
# cwebber I don't hear anyone yet
# cwebber :)
tantek joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme we already started the meeting in IRC if you want to present+
# ben_thatmustbeme offers to scribe
# ben_thatmustbeme scribenick:ben_thatmustbeme
# ben_thatmustbeme scribe:Ben Roberts
# ben_thatmustbeme chair:tantek
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: reconfirm next telcon
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: we are currently schedules for 3/14 are there any objections to that?
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: one thing we should mention is the meeting time, i don't know if you have noticed KevinMarks complaining about it
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i did
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: though I don't take that as seriously since he wasn't on every meeting in the other time slot
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: he made some, but this time is better for Amy and also probably better for Europeans
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: if Kevin raises a serious objection we'll deal with that
# ben_thatmustbeme ... if anyone gets the sense its more serious, we will deal with it
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: lets say that the march telcon time is confirmed
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: approval of past telcon minutes
# ben_thatmustbeme PROPOSED: approve minutes of 2-14
# bengo +1 to approving those minutes
# bengo +1
# cwebber +1
# ben_thatmustbeme RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2-14
eprodrom joined the channel
# eprodrom present
# cwebber +1
# cwebber oh
# ben_thatmustbeme (discussion of order of meeting agenda)
# cwebber I +1'ed twice
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom could you present+
# ben_thatmustbeme you missed the +
# eprodrom present+
# eprodrom ben_thatmustbeme: thanks!
# cwebber AP can be short
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: Micropub CR to PR
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i put a meta-item for it to the agenda for any CR to PR discussion
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the questions are 1) test-suite ETA and imp. coverage, 2) ... (refer to agenda)
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: unfortunately the test-suite has not made any new progress. It is only a client test, and i realized taking time to do that would push the entire schedule back. So instead i created a implementation report template
# ben_thatmustbeme ... as of this point there are 11 client implementation reports are submitted
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i put together a summary just like webmention as well
# ben_thatmustbeme ... dark green is more than half of the implementations have implmented it, light green is at least 2, and anything with only 1 is yellow
# ben_thatmustbeme the only thing that has only 1 is a vocabulary that was just put in for curiousity
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: (the link) is the server report as well. I should probably do it as a spreadsheet as well
# cwebber q+
# ben_thatmustbeme ... for example 20, 21, and 22 are all one for example, in the spreadsheet version those would all be in one row
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: so those are all ways you can do it? i'm trying to understand
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: yeah, they are different ways to recognize a successful update
# cwebber q-
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: does that mean that clients must handle all 3
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: exactly, in the client report there is a line about it handling all 3
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: that makes sense to me, if its looser on the server side its stricter on the client side
# ben_thatmustbeme ... it would be great to see the spreadsheet version of this as well
# cwebber removed self from queue
# cwebber yep
# ben_thatmustbeme ... it looks like there are at least 2 implementations of each feature
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: yes, we have had that for a while
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i'm on the client report, its great that you made all those implementations but i dont' think you having 2 implementations of a feature should really count
# ben_thatmustbeme ... just looking down the rows there is only 1 feature that looks to have that issue
# ben_thatmustbeme ben_thatmustbeme: i have plans to update one of my clients which is out of date for that
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: there are a few that i could ask to go and implement it
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i think it would be arguably challenging to have two implementations from the same person. you might be making the same decisions even if they are the same code base
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: it would be nice to not count your own, the editor has a short-cut which is their brain
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: sandro, are you proposing we don't count editor implementations at all?
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i'm not, its raising the bar late in the game, but it would make a stronger case
# cwebber feels like we don't have a lot of time left for delays
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: does that mean we should delay going to PR?
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i'm not really proposing that
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: this sort of hits me as odd but its because so many parts are only optional
# cwebber also note that we're getting to the halfway mark on the hour and we have a *big* topic today with AS2
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: yes thats because its possible and very useful to have clients that only support creating, if the server supports that at all
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: this reminds me a lot of the as2 report where different implementations use different sets
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: it kind of surprising to me in a protocol to have that though, it sort of gives me the sort of thin-ice feeling
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it, it just doesn't give me the security
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: i could also group the categories by those who actually implement updating at all
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i guess the question is, do you feel like those 2 implementations from outside the group are good enough?
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: i do
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: thats sort of on the WG to decide if thats enough
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: to that point i feel like external implementations carry more weight
# ben_thatmustbeme ... when i see multiple implementations from outside the working group, i feel good about it, when i see only one, i am concerned, when there are none, i am very concerned. not that i would stop it, but I would find it very concerning
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i feel like this group is on more thin-ice than i am used to as usually everyone is paying attention to all the specs and this group is more clustered to people only looking at some specs
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: so whats the summary of the implmentation status given all of this, i suppose there is the one sandro pointed out
# cwebber q+
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: that one would be certainly good to get another implementation that is not me
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: i am just going to suggest that we set a time limit on this so that we can get to AS2 since that is why we scheduled this meeting
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: i am okay with that, but micropub did get bumped
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: we also agreed this was a 2 hour meeting
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i am getitng the feeling we are not ready for CR based on this one feature?
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i agree but i don't think we need a meeting to do that, maybe we could approve pending that
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: that said i wouldn't stop it based on that, but it makes a better case when going in to the meeting on it
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: so it sounds like it may be worth waiting
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i think its worth waiting a week or two
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: so 2+ implmentations one of which should be not the editor's
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: so we could agree that we propose with it pending that one item
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: i would prefer to go with that
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: any issues needing group discussion?
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: no, changes are documented in changelog on editors draft
# ben_thatmustbeme ... they are editorial clarifications
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: sounds like you have ticked all the boxes, anyone else?
# eprodrom q?
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i wanted to ask, with that proposal, if there are any other changes in the time we are waiting for that implementation....
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: you mean changes in the spec?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: its possible at any time that someone can file a new issue, we can't control that
# ben_thatmustbeme PROPOSED: move micropub to CR pending an implementation of query for a single property
# ben_thatmustbeme what is the exact text wanted?
# cwebber +1
# eprodrom +1
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: post type discovery
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i hope this will be fast as its just a request to publish an updated WD
# eprodrom chair: eprodrom
# ben_thatmustbeme ... it resolves some issues on github, it has a few minor fixes
# eprodrom q?
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: your description is pretty straight forward, are tehre any questions from the group?
# ben_thatmustbeme s/tehre/there/
# eprodrom PROPOSED: publish a new working draft of Post Type Discovery based on current editor's draft
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: if there are no questions from the group... i think we can move to the proposal
# eprodrom +1
# bengo +1
# cwebber +1
# eprodrom RESOLVED: publish a new working draft of Post Type Discovery based on current editor's draft
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: are there other points on PTD you'd like to bring up during the meeting?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i think there were a couple issues i was waiting for commenter, let me pull those up to see if there are any that are worth the groups time
# ben_thatmustbeme ... one of the issues that i resolved with consensus in the thread was issue 13, which is waiting for response from the person to say that its ok
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i just want to get confirmation from the group that this is a good resolution to this issue
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: so its been waiting for commenter for a while and now we are looking to close it
# eprodrom PROPOSED: close issue #13 of Post Type Discovery as resolved
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: yes, per our github workflow we wait for original commentor to close it, or we get a group proposal to close it
# eprodrom PROPOSED: close issue #13 of Post Type Discovery as resolved since text was added to the document
# bengo +1
# eprodrom +1
# cwebber +1
# eprodrom RESOLVED: close issue #13 of Post Type Discovery as resolved since text was added to the document
# eprodrom chair: tantek
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: ActivityPub to PR
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: as we did with micropub can we go through the list of bullet points
# bengo q+
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: i've been pushing hard to get implementations, i have a large set of features implmented and groundwork for the test suite, i have been working on mostly implementing to help AS2
# ben_thatmustbeme bengo: i just want to ask this as an activitypub implmentor, is there any real chance that this will be a REC? I don't mean to offend anyone, but we have such a limited amount of time, is it better for the CG?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: the WG believes the spec is ready for implmentations, we are trying to make sure that the spec as written is implementable, there has been a bunch of work there
# eprodrom q+
# ben_thatmustbeme bengo: i think cwebber and I are the only ones that have started implementing, and there isn't even an report template yet
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: cwebber would you be able to make up an implementation report in the next 2 weeks?
# ben_thatmustbeme ??: its in the PR
# 
Loqi Abasset made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-02-28]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101642&oldid=101559
# Loqi Sandro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-02-28]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101643&oldid=101642
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-02-28]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101644&oldid=101643
# Loqi Aaronpk made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-02-28]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101645&oldid=101644
# bengo I understand and respect your time constraints cwebber, just forcing the issue
# bengo Happy to move on w/ agenda now that I've poked a bit. cwebber++ for work so far.
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: sorry, thats my fault, I will look at what bengo did and i will build on that. I also will say that the implementor behind mastadon is planning to implement, the intent is to get it done
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: certainly, we appreciate all the work you have done, the intent is to get it to REC, but the focus has been more on AS2, i expect that AP will see increased activity in the next month
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: i appreciate that bengo is trying to push things forward too, i should have a bunch more information by next time
# bengo yes
# cwebber yes
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: we have an agenda for next telcon, i'll leave it to you cwebber to add it to the agenda there
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: AS2
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i'll let you take it eprodrom
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: is amy on the call?
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: 2 weeks ago the concern we had was that we were going to miss some of the features for AP and annotications because we didn't have implementations for them
# 
sandro a bit out of date: https://www.w3.org/2017/02/social/implementations/as2/
# ben_thatmustbeme ... and we had them at risk really. the good news is that we have had a number of new implementation reports come in over the last few weeks, several in the last 24 hours
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i was trying to run amy's script but have been getting an error, i think we are pretty confident that it is no longer a concern
# ben_thatmustbeme if someone can take over scribing, i can re-run the script
# bengo I will scribe
# bengo how do I scribenick
# eprodrom ben_thatmustbeme: there's a bug that's throwing an error
# cwebber it could be my fault, I added orderedItems to my implementation report which isn't on there
# ben_thatmustbeme scribenick: bengo
# cwebber and href. maybe it doesn't like that
# bengo eprodrom: If your python is strong cwebber you may be able to fix what I couldn't
# bengo eprodrom: Having a new version would help with discussion
# cwebber where is the script?
# bengo eprodrom: Second concern we had that didn't come up last week but did come up since is the feature of languageMaps. Feature where instead of having simple strings for some values, there's an object with language code to -> string mapping
# sandro cwebber, it's linked from https://www.w3.org/2017/02/social/implementations/as2/
# bengo eprodrom: We only had one implementation of that as Publisher and Consumer
# bengo eprodrom: I did one implementation of this for node.js impl. It should cover these features
# bengo eprodrom: They were high priority because they are the i18n mechanism
# bengo I can implement this for distbin.com if it will move the needle.
# bengo eprodrom: Fortunately we do have implementations for these.
# bengo eprodrom: The 3 lang maps to have 2 impls both publishers and consumers
# bengo eprodrom: We've come to the last sticky wicket.
# bengo eprodrom: We've discussed several times the criteria for existing CR. When we discussed last week, we remembered that in previous meeting we talked about requiring 2 publishers and 2 consumers for each feature of the spec.
# bengo eprodrom: We had not actually raised that to the level of a proposal or resolution.
# bengo eprodrom: I think we had talked about it informally, but it had not come out to modify the exit criteria
# bengo eprodrom: We had expected to have this requirement, but the exit criteria says differently
# bengo eprodrom: It would be nice if this requirement was not a material difference.
# bengo eprodrom: On the implementation report now. With the implementaitons that came in this week, I believe we're fully covered for the ones that are light green. Which is good news.
# bengo The implementation report doesn't ask, for each feature, whether you are a publisher or consumer
# bengo just if you are *overall*
# bengo and then it adds 'PC' to every feature you mark as 'y'
# bengo eprodrom: It comes down to what we want to do as a group
# bengo eprodrom: My inclination is that we should make a change to the exit criteria to make it 2 pubishers and 2 consumers. Then we don't need to push it anymore.
# bengo eprodrom: Then we move as expected, any features that dont meet that
# bengo eprodrom: It would let us move on
# bengo I would like to stop scribing and q+ to discuss my previous comment
# bengo tantek: sandro what do you think of eprodrom proposal?
# eprodrom q-
# bengo sandro I'm torn. I like having more implementaiton reports. But I don't see any evidence that we agreed on this. I couldn't find anything in minutes, and I looked for awhile. It's been like a year so I don't remember our discussions. But I can see the minutes.
# bengo sandro I've been in lots of WGs that don't use that standard. So I think I would have noticed
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom socialstreams (mine) is missing a 'Implemented?' field that broke it
# bengo sandro: My inclination is to keep it at the lower bar
# bengo sandro That's clearly good enough in other places
# bengo tantek Can you cite a place
# bengo sandro Web Annotations
# bengo tantek Seriously?
# bengo sandro I think so. Their bar is that consumers are enough.
# bengo tantek I read their exit criteria. And despite their saying nothing about doing something meaninful. It did mention you must consume it and produce valid triples, etc
# bengo tantek From my reading it sounded like they wanted 2 producers and consumers
# ben_thatmustbeme scribenick:ben_thatmustbeme
# eprodrom ben_thatmustbeme++
# eprodrom THANK YOU
# ben_thatmustbeme bengo: i wanted to point out that as evan said, looking at the reports as they are rendered now, don't give us an accurate reflection of that
# cwebber shoot
# cwebber Pubstrate does implement Mention btw
# cwebber I must have missed it :\
# cwebber on the IR
# eprodrom q+
# cwebber also some of these items weren't on the IR page, esp the AP specific ones
# ben_thatmustbeme bengo: it doesn't ask you on the report if you are publishing and consuming on each, its just asking if you once
# cwebber eg inbox, endpoints, etc, were not on the template
# cwebber they aren't in AS2 core tho
# cwebber those are AP extensions
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: do you know of an implementation that publishes some features and consumes others
# ben_thatmustbeme bengo: I'm sure mine does, but i think if we want to change exit criteria it should take that in to account
# bengo it me :)
# cwebber q+
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i don't want to change exit criteria with bad data in front of it
# cwebber can I reply to that
# cwebber I don't think they are in AS2's terms
# cwebber q?
# eprodrom q+
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: it looks like inbox and outbox are the only things, and since thats your implementation, would you be okay with that being an extension?
# ben_thatmustbeme bengo: i would be, but if we change the ..
# bengo FWIW I said I would be okay with those not being in AS2
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: it makes sense that those aren't there since they aren't actually in the implementation report, and they also aren't even part of AS2, they are part of activity pub!
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i think i mostly agree with cwebber, with the other implementation reports summary table, we've put the extension type things at the bottom so its more just additional FYI, its certainly not required, but i think its good signaling, of "look at how green the spec is, and huh here's some interesting extensions in there i should look at"
# ben_thatmustbeme ... if its possible, could we do that? and i'm hoping whatever generates this could do that as well
# eprodrom q+
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: that sounds good to me, the bonus implementation report items
# ben_thatmustbeme sorry about that sandro
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: so i don't want to have anyone file implementation reports again, it would be great if we could change the report creation script so you could specify i'm only publishing or consuimg this feature. I don't think we are really going to have a feature thats going to come up where thats material
# ben_thatmustbeme ... some of these are libraries so they are just dealing with these in a similar way, so i think its unlikely that they will be dealing with them in a seperate way from consuming and publishing
# cwebber +1, would love to have it, doesn't need to hold up implementation
# cwebber er
# ben_thatmustbeme ... looking throught the report now i'm not seeing any case where we have 2 publisher and 2 consumers, but i don't think thats the case
# cwebber publishing
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i don't want to hold up publication for that
# cwebber not Mention
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: let me summarize that, are you saying based on the report you are determined of what makes sense to drop to go to PR?
# cwebber I just submitted a PR
# cwebber it wasn't in the template, but Pubstrate implements Mention
# sandro Are we all looking at https://ben.thatmustbe.me/static/reports.html
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: yes, all of those that are in red and probably some in light green as they are not part of the spec
# cwebber q+
# cwebber I can reply
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i only see one yellow which is 'mention', can you clarify that?
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i wouldn't wait for more implementation reports on it, honestly
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: that was another one of the things that was missing from the template and just got added.
# ben_thatmustbeme ... it is implmented by one more thing than is listed there
# bengo nevermind
# bengo there are 0 now right?
# bengo There will still be only 1 implementation
# bengo my bad
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: that one would go green at that point
# bengo sandro thanks
# cwebber I don't use it in any meaningful way
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i think the only main item in red that i would be concerned about would be ... relationship. there wasn't a place for it in the implementation report
# bengo which?
# cwebber I think that's just: IsScontact, IsFollowedBy, IsFollowing, IsMember
# ben_thatmustbeme i haven't seen it in ay of the implementations that came in
# bengo Relationship
# bengo got it
# cwebber er IsContact
# bengo ok
# bengo ... i dont use and never have
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: is it also followers and following?
# cwebber I'm okay with that being axed personally
# cwebber it could be an extension
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: thats from AcitivtyPub
# cwebber if someone needs it
# cwebber tantek, and everything that isn't the Is* things is part of activitypub
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the proposal that was on the table was to make a change to the exit criteria, i'm not sure what happens when we change that before going to PR
# cwebber I don't see any reason to hold off on going to PR
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: we can't change our exit criteria, we can remove things from the spec and hold off going to PR as a group, we can do that just among ourselves, similar to what we did with micropub
# bengo Can we... remove the red properties, then propose to raise the criteria bar given that all the remaining properties will still be in the PR, then go to PR?
# cwebber btw
# cwebber the AP items don't show up on the previous report
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: there are 2 things here, 1 is to agree to go to PR and to get these in to a state that would allow us to get this in an clearer form
# cwebber I'm not sure why they show up on the new, generated report
# cwebber q+
# ben_thatmustbeme ... not all of this work has to be done before we go to PR but before we ask our staff contact to take it to w3c management
# ben_thatmustbeme s/go to PR/vote to go to PR/
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: normatively speaking, we have to drop the relationship vocabulary stuff ... but let me go to queue
# eprodrom q?
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: the last generated as2 report didn't show inbox, i would suggest we just remove those or move them down
# eprodrom q+
# cwebber +1 on that
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i have opened up an issue on the report generator to filter out properties that are not part of as2 in to an extensions area
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom it may be me
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: can we just have a resolution to remove those 4 items we specified?
# 
tantek I'm seeing a bunch of yellow here https://www.w3.org/2017/02/social/implementations/as2/ that I'm not seeing on https://ben.thatmustbe.me/static/reports.html
# bengo and Mention?
# bengo ok
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek you need to refresh htat w3.org page
# bengo sorry thanks tantek
# ben_thatmustbeme PROPOSED: drop ask-risk terms, isContact, isFollowedBy, isFollowing, isMember from AS2
# bengo +1
# cwebber +1
# eprodrom +1
# ben_thatmustbeme RESOLVED: drop ask-risk terms, isContact, isFollowedBy, isFollowing, isMember from AS2
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: now that we have resolved to drop those as normative terms, do you want to consider them as extensions? are these still a good idea? we put them in the CR, but no one implmented them
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: the reason we had these was that we had some issues in the group that we had already had ... (cracked up a little) ... referring to external vocabulary, we should have a simple way to bring it in
# ben_thatmustbeme ... it appears to be something that we are not putitng a lot of implementation in to, adding those as another external vocabulary, would not be very helpful
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro i'll look in to that when i try to fix up some of these other issues
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i think we can vote on go to PR then
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: if you are accepting what evan is proposing
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i don't understand
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: eprodrom point was that we do have multiple implementations for 2 producers and consumers
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i don't see a need for that, why would we even talk about that
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i agree with eprodrom that we update it that we had that was our original intent
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: no, its not minuted there
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: why do you want to spend time on this issue, what does it accomplish?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: it strengthens our spec and continues a good practice of ..
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: the exit criteria will be dropped in the PR draft
# eprodrom q+
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i think we its a moot point with the point of what features we roll out
# eprodrom PROPOSED: recommend going to PR with all features that have 2 publishers and 2 consumers
# cwebber it doesn't say 2 publishers 2 consumers in the thing that was RESOLVED
# cwebber it just says 2 implementations
# cwebber linked from minutes bengo posted
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: what i would propose is that we not change the exit criteria but we do this in our final vote
# bengo -1 we should go to PR with what the exit criteria says...
# bengo because that's what they're for?
# cwebber anyway
# cwebber q+
# cwebber suggested language!
# cwebber I'll type it out
# bengo go to PR with all features that haven't been removed?
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i'm not sure i understand what standing on principle will help us here, if we can find some language that appeases everyone here, we are just splitting hairs here
# cwebber oh
# cwebber yeah that's good
# cwebber +1
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: but i dont' even know how to parse that, how about we just say we vote to go to PR
# ben_thatmustbeme i don't know what that means
# cwebber how about PROPOSED: ActivityPub move to CR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms) on the basis that all are satisfied that we have two implementations used of each term.
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: does that mean that we are deciding to publish or not
# cwebber oops
# bengo cwebber is good
# cwebber PROPOSED: ActivityStreams to CR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms) on the basis that all are satisfied that we have two implementations used of each term.
# eprodrom PR!
# cwebber PROPOSED: ActivityStreams to PR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms) on the basis that all are satisfied that we have two implementations used of each term.
# cwebber +1
# tantek PROPOSED: Take AS2 to PR with all features that have 2 publishers and 2 consumers, dropping terms that don't meet that as noted in https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/406
# bengo lol
# eprodrom +1 and +1
# bengo that's not the same tantek
# ben_thatmustbeme +1++
# eprodrom Tastes great AND less filling
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i'm trying to capture evan's proposal
# eprodrom Drop my proposal please
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: don't, let evan capture evan's proposal
# eprodrom c uip;
# eprodrom oops
# bengo eprodrom dropped his proposal. The next proposal state is cwebber 's
# bengo *stated
# tantek PROPOSED: Take ActivityStreams to PR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms per https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/406) on the basis that each term is used by 2+ implementations.
# cwebber +1
# eprodrom +1
# bengo +1
# eprodrom WOOOO
# tantek RESOLVED: Take ActivityStreams to PR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms per https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/406) on the basis that each term is used by 2+
# tantek RESOLVED: Take ActivityStreams to PR with edits made in this meeting (dropping Is* terms per https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/406) on the basis that each term is used by 2+ implementations.
# cwebber lol :) yay
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: 2 resolutions to go to PR in one call
# eprodrom q+
# cwebber just drop 'em
# cwebber yeah
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: does anyone want those 4 dropped terms to be an extension or completely drop them?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: yes as i understood it, we are just dropping them completely
# cwebber q+
# eprodrom q-
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: just an FYI, annotations kept their exit criteria as a note
# cwebber q?
# cwebber just a comment
# ben_thatmustbeme same here
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: i suggest we remove the relationship example in there with an external URL
# eprodrom http://vocab.org/relationship/
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: do we have an example of someone who is actually using that
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: we were originally using relationship from (link), my intention is to just replace it with one of these
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i'll put a note on the issue
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: this is an informative example correct?
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: yes
# ben_thatmustbeme ben_thatmustbeme: i'll do my best to update the report generator if we can get some updates to those messed up reports and someone can send me a list of extension items from this list
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: do we want to drop the empty column?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: lets move that to the issue that was opening on improvements to the report
# cwebber ben_thatmustbeme, here are the AP terms to be marked as extensions: as, authorizeClientKey, endpoints, followers, following, inbox, oauthClientAuthorize, outbox, preferredUsername, provideClientKey, proxyUrl, source, streams, uploadMedia
# eprodrom q+
# eprodrom That's what I was asking for
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: one minute on the F2F, there are only 2 people that have said yes to any specific date, that does not bode well
# 
aaronpk FYI I just published the micropub server report summary https://micropub.net/implementation-reports/servers/
# cwebber adds to it
# cwebber sorry, hadn't replied earlier
# eprodrom I just added my times; thanks for sharing it
# ben_thatmustbeme (discussion of likelyhood for f2f)
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: we can try again for may, that would be the last possible chance for us though
# ben_thatmustbeme ... what do people think about trying to do an F2F in may?
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: would it be any different for may?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i don't see how we are going to come to a conclusion on this, other than it seems unlikely we are going to do this in may
# ben_thatmustbeme its over 2 hours
# cwebber btw, apologies for raising the "will we have time for AS2" thing
# cwebber I didn't realise it was a 2 hour call
# cwebber CONGRATS!
# eprodrom tantek++
# ben_thatmustbeme congrats everyone!
# eprodrom ben_thatmustbeme++
# eprodrom thanks so much for handling this great discussion
# ben_thatmustbeme trackbot end meeting
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/28-social-minutes.html trackbot
# ben_thatmustbeme i was wrong, it wasn't my implementation report that was broken, it was this. https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/pull/407
# ben_thatmustbeme minutes are up
# ben_thatmustbeme best I could do, as far as the 4 terms we are dropping, this generates from as2's https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams so once that gets updated it will remove them (on next rebuild of it)
# tantek I've updated https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-03-14 with the items we didn't get to today, and updates on the items we did get to.