#social 2017-03-14
2017-03-14 UTC
ben_thatmust, timbl and fabrixxm joined the channel
bengo and eprodrom joined the channel
julien joined the channel
# 
bengo hi!
# eprodrom Wooooow we have a lot to get through today
tantek joined the channel
# eprodrom trackbot, start meeting
# 
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-social-irc
RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim joined the channel
# eprodrom We need a scribe?
# julien present+
# eprodrom present+
# ben_thatmust present+
cwebber joined the channel
# bengo present+
# 
tantek last week's minutes btw: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-02-28-minutes
# ben_thatmust i scribed last week
# 
ben_thatmustbeme s/week/meeting
# ben_thatmustbeme i'll scribe again if needed
# cwebber present+
# eprodrom scribenick; csarven
# eprodrom scribenick: csarven
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven correct, just start with personsname: or later lines just start with ... if its a continuation
# ben_thatmustbeme only commands you may need past that is TOPIC:<some topic>
# eprodrom +1
# eprodrom PROPOSAL: accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-02-28-minutes as minutes for 2017-02-28 telecon
# eprodrom +1
# bengo +1
# cwebber +1
# eprodrom RESOLVED: accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-02-28-minutes as minutes for 2017-02-28 telecon
# cwebber +1 on biweekly
# julien +1 for biweekly
# eprodrom PROPOSED: schedule telecons for 2017-03-28 and 2017-04-11
# julien +1
# eprodrom +1
# eprodrom RESOLVED: schedule telecons for 2017-03-28 and 2017-04-11
# cwebber I can't make the 28th
# cwebber well maybe I can
# cwebber but it will be hard
# cwebber how about, I will *try to* make the 28th :)
# cwebber no objections
KevinMarks joined the channel
# eprodrom # of people necessary
# eprodrom PROPOSED: No further F2Fs for WG; any future F2Fs under umbrella of CG
# bengo +1
# cwebber +1
# eprodrom +1
# 
KevinMarks I should be able to make this better, but currently not good broadband for calling in
# eprodrom RESOLVED: No further F2Fs for WG; any future F2Fs under umbrella of CG
# KevinMarks (I'm in sunny Yorkshire)
# ben_thatmustbeme scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
# 
rhiaro listed all relevant links on agenda for LDN: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-03-14#Topics
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: we're at a point where we only have editorial changes, we have a summary link for all 3 new reports we've collected, there are at least 2+ implmeentations per type of implementation
# tantek https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/tests/summary looks really good!
# eprodrom Yeah, wow!
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: (reviews stats for inside / outside of WG implementations, scribe missed the exact numbers)
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: we have a few more implementation reports in the works
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: looking at the implementation matrix looks great
# ben_thatmustbeme ... there are 3 tests that do not appear widely implemented, are those optional?
# ben_thatmustbeme ... PRCU, GLCG, and GNL
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: when its marked as inapplicable, there is no information for it, we are updating as we find out. if its inapplicable, they are not expected to implment that
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: so that sideways L symbol means this is the kind of implementation that isn't expected to do that, is that correct?
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: they may be processing it, but are not giving that information back out
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: not sure i understand
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: in general this looks really good, aside from the axis flip which confused me too, is there some way we can indicate which features are optional vs MUST?
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the second question, is it possible to indicate in the rows which were written by editor(s), inside the WG, and outside the WG
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i found that really useful to show how much support we have outside the WG
# ben_thatmustbeme ... it makes LDN look even stronger
# ben_thatmustbeme ... that way as we take it to PR, etc, it will be benefiticial
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: we can certainly group them, and mention it in the reports themselves
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: regarding the axis flip this is the "correct" way to show the data
# ben_thatmustbeme ... thats convention
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: to be clear, i wasn't asking for the axis to be flipped, its just different from the way i saw on others
# ben_thatmustbeme ... your reasoning makes sense
# eprodrom q+
# eprodrom ack tantek
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: for marking optional vs required, we could do that, part of the test was to catch the most common things people are doing. as there are no fails right now. I could mark the things that are optional on the columns possibly
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: that would be great
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: minor note, the reports are submitted as an LDN, when the reports are created, its sent to the summary as an LDN,
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: so the summary itself is a conforming LDN
# ben_thatmustbeme ... and there is rdfa on these too which, maybe someone will use in the future
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i think that we are fairly stable with the reports and the spec
# eprodrom ack eprodrom
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i have a question, about activitypub and LDN. one of the goals of having LDN in this group was to have the distribution mechanism for AP. I don't know that any of these are also AP implementations. I'm sort of concerned about going to PR without having an AP implementation using it. I know thats unfortunate coupling, but i wanted to ask cwebber about that
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: i'm pretty sure that rhiaro was able to make her implementation use them. I could probably make my implementation do that. We specify it in the spec of how they are similar, but we don't demonstrate that outside of amy's impl.
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: certainly .....
# bengo true story
# ben_thatmustbeme rhiaro: my implementation is AP and LDN compatible, its slightly broken currently, and i think bendo is using both as well
# ben_thatmustbeme s/bendo/bengo/
# eprodrom ack eprodrom
# eprodrom ack rhiaro
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: if thats the case then i feel comfortable, then i want to go forward with it, but go forward with eyes open that we have light implementation of the two of them together. But i think it will be benefitial to AP to have a distribution mechanism at PR
# ben_thatmustbeme rhiaro: i just wanted to discuss required vs optional. There would be red boxes if there were any failed required results. the grey boxes are failed by optional
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: thats not the exact meaning i've seen in other groups.
# ben_thatmustbeme rhiaro: they are MUST IF's so each of those
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: if i were looking at this naively, which i somewhat am, i would assume that inapplicable means that those don't apply to those classes of implementations, not optional
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: we borrowed the test outcomes from the w3c's EARL, which used those values
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the outher thing is that the reports that made it through are the ones that are passing. I know that many of them did have failing during some of these, but they submitted the reports once they were cleared up
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: there is no question of that, this is about presentation, we trust what you did, but its about making it more presentable to those outside the group
# ben_thatmustbeme csarven: we'll clear it up
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i want to make sure that given that you have limited time, we get any process stuff done
# ben_thatmustbeme ... okay i just cleared the queue, good for me :)
# ben_thatmustbeme rhiaro: before we go to PR, we'd like to publish an updated CR with editorial changes
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: we don't need to do an updated CR for changes that are clearly editorial
# eprodrom PROPOSED: request transition of LDN to PR
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: okay, if we don't need to do that then i'm going to make the proposal for transition without qualification ...
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i'm looking at the closed issues, and I am seeing a number that are still 'waiting for commentor' and i want to make sure that those are changed to 'timeout' and we have made a good effort to contact them
# eprodrom PROPOSED: request transition of LDN to PR with editorial updates
# ben_thatmustbeme ... oh the latest one is sept 2nd, so we can definitely count those as timeout
# cwebber +1
# bengo +1
# eprodrom +1
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: those changes being the acknowledgement sections
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: correct
# ben_thatmustbeme <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: if you have a -1 to throw in, do it now
# eprodrom RESOLVED: request transition of LDN to PR with editorial updates
# ben_thatmustbeme ... or say you need more time
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: thank you sarven for hanging on some extra time
# ben_thatmustbeme ... any extra discussion around LDN before we move on?
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: anything else we wanted to cover?
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i think we are good
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: micropub
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: we need to get some updates about the test suite
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: last week we screwed up a little bit, we did not verify that we had complete client tests before we took it to PR
# ben_thatmustbeme ... despite the vote for going to PR, we didn't meet our standards for PR
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: since last call i worked really hard on adding client tests and now there are complete tests for client features on the site. and as you go through client tests on the site, it checks off the pieces in the report for you and gives you the text to insert into your report. this allows people to still submit manually if they want and the format didn't need to change at all
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i have seen people using it, but no one has submitted a report using the tests yet as most submitted them by hand before that
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: have you been in contact with people to get a clue as to when they might do that?
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: i have talked to a couple people but i havent' heard back yet on when
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i guess i'm a little bit confused on where we are, we voted to go to PR, there was some concern about client tests, what actionable for the group now?
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: do we need to reel back in our proposal?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: we did reel it back last week, since then we have fixed the missing implementation reports, i think what sandro was asking is do we have new reports since launching the client tests.
dmitriz joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: we have not, mine did not change with the new tests, so the report is still the same
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: so have we heard of any changed reports since?
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: no
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: looks like shpub and micropublish are the two most complete besides yours, if we reached out to them and asked, that would be a good confirmation to me
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: we could go with a proposal conditional that their clients return the same results with the test, that way we can move on automatically, if not then we have to reaccess it
# ben_thatmustbeme ... thoughts?
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i feel like if we are going to be meeting again in a few weeks, then the 28th would be a good time to go to PR
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: ideally it should be simply a matter of a few days, not two weeks
# eprodrom PROPOSED: requesting advancement of Micropub to PR conditioned on ...
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: it sounds like we have something along the (typing out proposal)
# eprodrom PROPOSED: requesting advancement of Micropub to PR conditioned on confirmation of client implementations
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i'm trying to figure out where the bar is here
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the strictest would be throw out all the ..
# ben_thatmustbeme <ben_thatmustbeme> -1!
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i'm trying to figure out where else is rational to set the bar at
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: it seems reasonable to me
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: if you pitch it to them that it fills out everything for them
# eprodrom PROPOSED: requesting advancement of Micropub to PR conditioned on confirmation of client implementations
# ben_thatmustbeme ben_thatmustbeme: so are we throwing out all the implementation reports?
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i think we are going with just shpub and micropublish in addition to aaronpk's implementation, and if there are any other issues with the test suite
KevinMarks2 joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i picked those two because they cover most of it
fabrixxm joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: yes, i think those are good canaries
# cwebber +1
# eprodrom +1
# ben_thatmustbeme <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: can we extend the meeting a bit?
# cwebber I can give a 2 minute AP update
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: we have a lot to cover still
# eprodrom RESOLVED: Request Micropub -> PR when new complete test suite is reported passed by impls from editor, shpub, micropublish, and no one else reports problems
# cwebber I could do a meeting next week
# cwebber no objections
# julien For websub, I sent an email earlier today which we can maybe use as a basis for discussion over email? and I am ok to continue either way
# eprodrom 15 minutes extension
# julien +1
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: if there are no objections, i am going to unilaterally extend by 15 minutes
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: we resolved to take AS2 to PR 2 weeks ago, that was pending a draft update that would remove the set up features we did not have implmntations on, but they are all marked optional at risk
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: that updated draft is not ready but i should have something by the end of the week
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the normative change was to remove those at-risk features that were lacking implementations.
# ben_thatmustbeme .. the editorial was remove the 'at-risk' labels, and archive exit criteria and changelog
# ben_thatmustbeme ... so next steps?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: we already resolved that, so we just need it to be updated, and that will get it to transition and published by next week
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: it depends on a couple people, if you get it to me by thursday, we should be able to publish by tuesday
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: if we get all our ducks in a row too, we could probably do LDN too
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: so we are aiming for tuesday for all 3 of these PRs
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: optimistically
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: and we are not going to be holding any up, get your work done or you miss the tuesday train
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i'm assuming we haven't seen any new AS2 issues come up
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: yes, only editorial
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: its not a huge deal if one misses it, but it would be nice to get all our PRs together
# cwebber AP will be very short
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: websub looks long, i wonder if we can postpone until next meeting?
# julien +1 (but read the mail I sent earlier today)
# cwebber that's fine
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: activitypub
# julien +1 sandro!
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: there was an email this morning that people should read and respond to
# julien looking forzward to see responses ;)
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber: in short, i did merge bengo's implementation report template, i went through it an everything looks good, there is one small unresolved thing at the bottom i need to take care of. I hoped to tget the test suite by this call, but It has not happened. I have been working on it, but it is very complex and i have been a bit burned out. We have an implementation report but i should probably advertise that a bit better
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: can i get a quick few minutes on the CG issue
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i noticed that there was some spam coming in from W3C Social Business Community Group, it looks to be dead
# ben_thatmustbeme can we request w3c close it and direct people to the new CG
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: sounds good, can you phrase it as a proposal?
# eprodrom +1
# cwebber +1
# ben_thatmustbeme <ben_thatmustbeme> there are tons of dead CGs so the more dead ones closed, the better
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i'll try to reach out to the chair too, but it sure looks like the group is dead
# eprodrom RESOLVED: request that W3C Social Business Community Group be closed with a message inviting anyone there to join the W3C Social Web Community Group
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: and make it clear that if they do have stuff to work on they can do that in the social web CG
# julien Thanks!
# eprodrom trackbot, end meeting
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/14-social-minutes.html trackbot
# tantek hah here you go https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socbizcg/2017Mar/
KevinMarks joined the channel
jasnell joined the channel
jasnell joined the channel
# tantek !tell sandro more socbizcg spam: https://www.w3.org/community/socbizcg/rapid-start-for-social-business/
# 
Loqi Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/ldn-pr]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101798&oldid=0
# Loqi Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-03-14]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101801&oldid=101649
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101803&oldid=101569
# Loqi Tantekelik made 3 edits to [[Socialwg/2017-03-14]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101806&oldid=101801
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-03-14-minutes]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101818&oldid=101816
# Loqi Eprodrom made 4 edits to [[Socialwg/2017-03-14]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101810&oldid=101806
# Loqi Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-03-14-minutes]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101816&oldid=0
KevinMarks joined the channel
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-03-14]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101826&oldid=101810
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-03-28]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101830&oldid=0
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-04-11]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101835&oldid=0
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=101836&oldid=101803
jasnell, KevinMarks, timbl, strugee and KevinMarks2 joined the channel