#social 2017-05-09
2017-05-09 UTC
timbl, dmitriz and KevinMarks joined the channel
tantek joined the channel
# 
cwebber oops
# cwebber calling in
# cwebber present+
# cwebber oh, meeting hasn't started yet
RRSAgent joined the channel
# 
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-social-irc
Zakim joined the channel
# cwebber present+
# cwebber I can scribe
# cwebber scribenick: cwebber
# cwebber tantek: ok, let's review and approve last week's minutes
# cwebber +1
eprodrom joined the channel
# eprodrom present+
# eprodrom +1
# cwebber RESOLVED: approved https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-02-minutes
# cwebber tantek: next item: let's talk about the next telcon
# cwebber tantek: we had proposals to do talks either every week or every two weeks
# cwebber tantek: it made sense previously to do talks every week as opposed to every two weeks
# eprodrom q+
# cwebber sandro: I'm thinking until we're caught up and run out of things to talk about on meetings we should probably be meeting every week
# cwebber eprodrom: I just wanted to say I wonder to what extent this is dependent on the schedule for primarily ActivityPub, to some extent WebSub
# cwebber eprodrom: I think we've talked a little bit about extending the group if possible, urgency possibly goes up or down depending on whether we do that
# cwebber tantek: I agree, particularly in getting activitypub and websub in terms of checkmarks in terms of CR -> PR
# cwebber tantek: to put it in a positive way, as long as we make normative changes we need to issue new CRs for or are updating the test suite, then we probably need to meet every week
# cwebber tantek: is that similar to what you're saying?
# cwebber eprodrom: yes that's exactly it
# cwebber eprodrom: I'd hate to miss a deadline because we missed a meeting
# cwebber tantek: it sounds like the chairs and staff contact are in pretty strong agreement. if nobody objects I think we can make a call
# cwebber soudns good
# cwebber aaronpk: I'm good with next week
# cwebber tantek: and part of this is we need to set expectations that we'll do weekly calls as long as there's no objections
# eprodrom +1
# cwebber tantek: this isn't that big of a surprise anyway, we're basically moving back to our normal weekly telcon schedule until swe're confident with at least ActivityPub (and WebSub?) moving to PR
# cwebber +1
# eprodrom Yes
# eprodrom All good
# cwebber RESOLVED: we'll keep meeting as long as there's work to do on CR->PR on websub / AP
# cwebber tantek: I believe AS2 and MicroPub end PR period on Thursday
# cwebber tantek: so Amy and Sandro, any other news on PR vote on MiroPub?
# cwebber tantek: and AS2
# cwebber sandro: Amy is still on her offline hiatus
# cwebber we heard you
# eprodrom I can hear everyone
# cwebber we can hear you tantek but maybe you can't hear u
# cwebber s
# eprodrom I can hear Tantek and Aaron and Sandro
# eprodrom I feel like this is a logic problem
dmitriz joined the channel
# cwebber sandro: summary is nothing has changed
# cwebber tantek: in that case, I will reiterate my encouragement to all of you to reach out to your AC reps for all of you
# cwebber tantek: and encourage them to at least support the specifications if not commit to implementing them
# cwebber tantek: the more positive notes we can get the better. but at least we have no objections
# cwebber tantek: I'm postponing Post Type Discovery
# cwebber TOPIC: websub
# cwebber tantek: where are we with the test suite
# cwebber aaronpk: the test suite is very nearly done, subscriber tests are there
# cwebber aaronpk: a nice list of all the test cases there
# cwebber aaronpk: that's based on some of the github discussions that have happened. fortunately it doesn't require any normative changes in the spec because it's just behavior that shoudl happen in terms of http
# cwebber aaronpk: I'm in the middle of finishing the hubtests. the two main ones are done
# cwebber aaronpk: a basic subscription request, and there is a test for the signature (?)
# cwebber aaronpk: some hubs are public, some are part of publishing software like mastodon, wordpress... so I basically had to make two different flows for starting those tests
# cwebber aaronpk: yeah, those two are in place, I had to work on the edge cases
# cwebber aaronpk: the one thing I didn't do in the tests in order to speed things up is I didn't do anything to make it store the results
# cwebber could you repeat that last one
# cwebber aaronpk
# cwebber aaronpk: I didn't do anything to have it store the results, so it's just a tool that helps you fill out the implementation report
KevinMarks joined the channel
# cwebber tantek: ok so that begs the question, is there an implementation report template that an implementer can fill out manually based on the results of the test suite they get
# cwebber aaronpk: yep there's three of them, one for each role... the subscriber template is complete, and once I finish the hub test I'll have that
# cwebber aaronpk: I wanted to avoid previous problem where someone filled out report without tests available
# cwebber aaronpk: we have one for subscribers, will do for publishers
# cwebber tantek: the sooner we can put out a call for people to fill it out the better
# cwebber aaronpk: as soon as I do edge cases for publishers I can do taht
# cwebber tantek: if we're ready for subscribers, we can ask that now
# cwebber aaronpk: all I need to do is write the publisher report template
# cwebber tantek: great, then we can get the pub and the sub of pubsubhubbub
# cwebber tantek: when do you think this test suite for hubs will be completed
# cwebber aaronpk: I'm hoping before next week, before the end of this week, it'll be done
# cwebber tantek: that includes implementation reports as well?
# cwebber aaronpk: yep
# cwebber tantek: sounds good, do we know of implementations that will pass them, or?
# cwebber tantek: are we waiting more on "we have to find more implementations to document, encourage more implementing"
# cwebber aaronpk: I've been testing with a few as I"ve been going, superfeedr already passes it, and mastodon is very close
# cwebber aaronpk: I haven't tested as many subscribers because I don't know as many to test
# cwebber tantek: do you know of at least two implementations of subscribers?
# cwebber aaronpk: superfeedr is a subscriber but I haven't run it through tests as a subscriber yet
# cwebber aaronpk: there's woodwind also, but I haven't seen the results of that yet
# cwebber tantek: ok
# 
sandro Curious if github.com passes as a publisher (+hub?). It claims to implement PuSH. https://developer.github.com/v3/repos/hooks/
# cwebber tantek: any new issues needing group discussion for websub?
# cwebber aaronpk: don't believe so
# cwebber tantek: any editorial changes you need to publish as an updated CR?
# cwebber aaronpk: not at the moment
# cwebber sandro: we do have 4 uncategorized open issues
KevinMarks joined the channel
# cwebber aaronpk: 97 is a discussion one intended to remain open until PR, don't know how to tag that
# cwebber aaronpk: I think 98 could be resolved with some editorial language, 99 could be resolved as soon as implementation reports are in place, 102 is a question I had when I was implementing test suite, might not require any normative changes, wanted julian to weigh in
# cwebber aaronpk: 102 is when a hub delivers a notification that includes an incorrect signature, this is when it's expecting it to sign a notification
# cwebber aaronpk: when a hub returns an incorrect signature, it still returns 200, but I was wondering why not 400 bad request but I don't have any way to test that without a different status code to read
# cwebber aaronpk: ben pointed out that allowing the receiver to return 200 here allows processing here
# cwebber aaronpk: that makes sense to me, do others have thoughts on other reasons to return 200?
# cwebber sandro: I don't see ben's reason as a reason to say MUST, seems like a MAY. Only MUST I can think of is if you think it's a security risk. Given this is a human keyspace not a computer keyspace, I don'tt think guessing is a threat
# cwebber aaronpk: the other thing I could see is the hub is going to treat a non-200 status code as an error
# cwebber aaronpk: this may deactivate a subscription
# cwebber aaronpk: this may be one reason, but at the point that a hub is incorrectly ??? a signature, I'm not sure that's a valid case it would get into
# cwebber sandro: you'd want it to stop in this case I'd think. My inclination is this should be a MAY
# cwebber sandro: I agree this should at least be editorial
# cwebber aaronpk: yeah I think it needed some explaination regardless of outcome, but I wanted Julian to chime in because he probably knew where it came from
# cwebber tantek: could we have you at least propose some non-normative explanatory language?
# cwebber aaronpk: not until I know more about why this was in here
# cwebber tantek: I mean more the point about async from ben and sandro's point about reasoning for a MAY
# 
Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-09]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102952&oldid=102853
# cwebber aaronpk: yeah I'd rather wait
# cwebber tantek: ok we'll look again next week
# cwebber tantek: could you ping julian again, aaronpk ?
# cwebber aaronpk: yep... I am going to mark it as editorial since it will be some explaination
# cwebber sandro: and if we change it to a MAY...
# cwebber sandro: it's hard to see that as requiring a new CR because it's loosening conformance criteria
# cwebber tantek: it's non-normative because it's loosening conformance requirements
# cwebber tantek: I'd like to resolve it one way or another next week
# cwebber tantek: in particular aaronpk I'd like you to figure out what you'd like to figure out what you'd like to do with this issue by next week
# cwebber aaronpk: ok
# cwebber aaronpk: ok I'd also like to quickly talk about issue 98. I think we can get a resolution quickly
# cwebber aaronpk: I realized if you followed HTTP you'd handle subscriptions automatically
# cwebber aaronpk: doesn't require any special handling on the subscriber which is nice
# cwebber aaronpk: I would like to add an informative section describing this situation so there's some guidance in the spec on how to migrate
# cwebber tantek: ok
# cwebber tantek: seems reasonable, what do people think
# cwebber sandro: agreed
# eprodrom +1
# cwebber tantek: I think esp since it's editorial we can leave it to editor's discretion
# cwebber aaronpk: ok
# cwebber aaronpk: will write it up
# cwebber tantek: write that up then why don't we accumulate any other editorial changes, if we're going to do a new CR with editorial changes let's do it next week instead of today
# cwebber aaronpk: ok
# cwebber aaronpk: we can publish new CR without restarting the process?
# cwebber tantek: yes for editorial only changes
# cwebber sandro: we did that with ActivityPub like 3 weeks ago
# cwebber tantek: feelf ree to edit the editorial draft as usual
# cwebber aaronpk: that covers everything
# cwebber tantek: goal for next week is to resolve that issue and handle the CR
# eprodrom I can scribe
# eprodrom scribenick: eprodrom
# eprodrom TOPIC: ActivityPub
# eprodrom cwebber: NextCloud released a beta with AP support
# eprodrom cwebber: leaving OAuth out of the test suite
# eprodrom cwebber: Not going to refactor, just going forward with current design
# eprodrom cwebber: moved forward with CR2
# eprodrom cwebber: 9 May 2017 CR
# eprodrom q+
# eprodrom cwebber: A search engine was getting the public feeds on Mastodon and had some responses
KevinMarks joined the channel
# eprodrom q+
# eprodrom AUDIENCE
# eprodrom This is what audience targeting is for
# eprodrom >:(
# eprodrom No, this is explicitly what audience targeting is for
KevinMarks_ joined the channel
# eprodrom ajordan: did you check the Nextcloud implementation?
# eprodrom cwebber: no, only saw mention
# eprodrom ajordan: there seems to be a desire for fine-grained control, public-but-not-searchable
# eprodrom sandro: question of flags not being sufficient
# eprodrom sandro: the thread of 50-60 posts is worth reading through
# eprodrom q+
# sandro that thread is https://freeradical.zone/@Balor/146643
# Loqi [Antoine Aflalo] Want a full text #search engine for toots? Try: https://cler.ical.ist/ made by @vhf
KevinMarks joined the channel
# eprodrom sandro: we will have CG discussions on systems besides SW specs
# eprodrom cwebber: fine with extensions
# eprodrom tantek: let's use extension routes for doing this
# eprodrom tantek: should not need to block AP
# eprodrom eprodrom: we could use more well-known addresses for fine-grained public control (like PublicNotSearchable)
# eprodrom q+
# eprodrom cwebber: we have deferred this without a solution
# eprodrom eprodrom: I think we have a solution and the commenter is refusing to understand it
# eprodrom tantek: we can add editorial guidance, and move on from there
# eprodrom sandro: if we have more time, let's not close it
# eprodrom tantek: where are we with the test suite?
KevinMarks_ joined the channel
# eprodrom TOPIC: rechartering
# eprodrom cwebber, do you want to go back to scribing?
# cwebber scribenick: cwebber
# eprodrom cwebber, thanks sir
# cwebber sandro: as we talked about it last week, we talked about an extension as well as a rechartering. Extension is to take vastly increased enthusiasm and mastodon momentum in activitypub
# cwebber sandro: twenty-two new user interfaces in the last month and half a million users seems to be plenty of reason to take more time
# cwebber q+
# cwebber sandro: and I'm fairly confident w3c will agree
# cwebber tantek: the other observation last week is the release of miro? last week and their use of micropub and social apis
# cwebber tantek: their whole area has been to do replies using webmention and vouch, so that was the other piece that would go into this extension or rechartering, but seems like another area
# cwebber tantek: we have a spec and there's interest
# cwebber sandro: do you have numbers to show that to be more than one person's project?
# cwebber aaronpk: there's a lot of kickstarter backers
# cwebber tantek: there's multiple implementations and the micro.blog stuff
# eprodrom q+
# cwebber tantek: there's at least 3k people with accounts... not half a million, but that's a big jump
# cwebber sandro: yep the kickstarter is great. I'll add that, I hadn't seen it
# cwebber tantek: that's an argument for Vouch IMO
# cwebber tantek: this is a momentum argument
# cwebber tantek: the other one to consider which has a weaker case is salmentions
# cwebber tantek: the only reason to bring up is the SWAT0 which we've strongly agreed on
# cwebber tantek: I'd like to try to get it in scope if we're doing a rechartering for that reason
# cwebber tantek: we have multiple implementations using it
# cwebber q-
# cwebber eprodrom: yeah to me what I'd like to see is that we do as limited a rechartering as possible... take the things we already have going that may or may not be ready to close and get them closed. for me and... I know cwebber does not agree.. but I think splitting up the mature part of activitypub of c2s go out and the s2s part which we're not sure we can test make that a second half
# cwebber q+
# cwebber eprodrom: split it into two things, see AP get finished
# cwebber eprodrom: I think that might be a good way to suggest getting things done
# cwebber eprodrom: we've already extended once, I worry we might not be able to get the whole part done
# eprodrom scribenick: eprodrom
# eprodrom cwebber: We have a simple way to do testing of s2s auth
# eprodrom cwebber: we had the CG meeting last week, lot of enthusiasm
# eprodrom cwebber: CG group wants to get AP finished
# eprodrom cwebber: so that GNU Social and Mastodon gets caught up
# cwebber can scribe again
# eprodrom +1
# cwebber scribenick: cwebber
# cwebber +1 to extending
# cwebber tantek: ok we're extended to 9:15
# cwebber sandro: to clarify the process, extending is what we did in December, and what I'm suggesting we do now
# cwebber sandro: it's basically a w3c management decision saying this group is doing ok, and it doesn't involve moving to the advisory committee or change scope. it might involve agreement that it goes to this narrow thing, but it's relatively straightforward
# cwebber sandro: my expectation is that if things are picking up the way things are going, we might want to recharter, which might mean some people come and go, but a rechartering makes sense (it would mean 20 members get on board)
# cwebber sandro: but those are very separate things between rechartering and extension
# cwebber sandro: if we get the extension to weave mastodon into the fold, would it make sense to weave in vouch and salmentions?
# cwebber tantek: the other way to frame those if you want is iterating on webmention
# cwebber tantek: these are the extensions we've iterated on since the rec and I think that's grey area enough to ask what your comfort level is
# cwebber sandro: I will put that on the agenda
# cwebber tantek: the sort-of-obvious thing is I haven't had time to do updates on Post Type Discovery
# cwebber sandro: I don't think we'd need to say a "limited extension", we'd leave our hands not particularly tied
# cwebber sandro: at which case we have a continuing chartter
# cwebber tantek: I want to address eprodrom, he was addressing potential c2s and s2s separation
# cwebber tantek: while I don't disagree on maturity, from extension or rechartering it makes sense to keep both
# cwebber tantek: I would rather not tie our hands
# cwebber ...
# cwebber what xakim
# cwebber tantek: as long as it doesn't put a risk of us not being able to put on them
# cwebber sandro: I don't think so
# cwebber thunderdome not necessary
# cwebber I hope evan and I don't disagree *that* much ;)
# eprodrom I don't think we need to
# cwebber tantek: any idea on time?
# cwebber sandro: I feel like 6 months is the best compromise. we could maybe ask for 3 months
# cwebber q+
# eprodrom I like to ship
# cwebber tantek: I think that's wise to increase the runway
# cwebber +1 on shipping also :)
# eprodrom cwebber, is there an issue for that?
# cwebber eprodrom, there is
# eprodrom I'm happy to talk to that problem
# cwebber going to scribe self first
# cwebber cwebber: mastodon very specifically wanted clarity on webfinger
KevinMarks joined the channel
# cwebber tantek: we want to avoid starting a new fight on that though
# cwebber ajordan: should we ask for 3-6 months?
# cwebber sandro: best to not be wishy washy and just clear about what we want
# cwebber tantek: the other point raised to me in other capacity is increasing desire from w3c management for working groups to do maintenance of their specs including folding in erratta etc
# cwebber tantek: esp if you spec is being close to being done etc
# cwebber tantek: normative fixes etc
# cwebber tantek: so you could see a .rev etc
# cwebber tantek: this is something to consider for everything that we're doing
# cwebber tantek: from my understanding the w3c management *wants* to hear on how we are doing maintenance
# cwebber sandro: seems to me pretty clear given our CG plan that we have a pretty good plan there
# cwebber sandro: I'm assuming aaron and chris are willing to maintain the specs they've edited
# cwebber yes
# cwebber tantek: first half is getting eratta edited and done in there, second half is getting them published as official w3c docs with IP protection, etc
# cwebber tantek: my understanding is they'd like to see that in a WG
# cwebber sandro: when we get to that, yes
# 
ajordan eprodrom: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/194 is the Webfinger issue from a couple minutes ago
# cwebber q+ just to mention next CG call
# cwebber q- just
# cwebber q+ to just mention next CG call before this call ends
# cwebber yes may 19th
# cwebber no I just said it on irc
# cwebber SocialCG
# cwebber yup
# cwebber throws things in the swicg hole
KevinMarks joined the channel
# cwebber should I type it?
# cwebber PROPOSED: Extend for 6 months to incorporate increased developer feedback
# cwebber +1
KevinMarks_ joined the channel
# eprodrom +1
# cwebber whew :)
# cwebber RESOLVED: Extend for 6 months to incorporate increased developer feedback
# cwebber tantek: in that case I want to plant a seed in peoples' heads for face to face possibilities
# cwebber tantek: maybe we can talk next week
# cwebber tantek: in particular put down on your calendars the TPAC meeting
# cwebber tantek: see you all next tuesday!
# eprodrom Thanks tantek !
# eprodrom Thanks cwebber for scribing!
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-social-minutes.html trackbot
# 
ben_thatmustbeme missed the meeting dealing with computer issues
# cwebber thanks for chairing tantek
# cwebber tantek++
# cwebber aaronpk: so it looks like from https://beta.doodle.com/poll/vvn2rn36ikgpx96b#table that next time friday works for you and me, so we should do that then
# cwebber but in general it looks like friday and sunday are the days that work for people
# cwebber aaronpk: I wonder if we should schedule next on friday, and the one after that on sunday, to see if it captures some people who can't make it on weekdays otherwise
# cwebber aaronpk: and after doing that we can make a decision for what day to do regularly
# cwebber aaronpk: is that too convoluted? does itt make sense to you?
# cwebber aaronpk: ok
# cwebber the main people that can't do it next sunday seem to be people heading to indiewebcamp
# cwebber which I assume is more because IWC
# cwebber than long term
# cwebber :)
# cwebber failboats
# cwebber so one stupid way to do it
# cwebber is to set up the "long term" poll
# cwebber and do friday next week, sunday the week after
# cwebber and ask participants on both to fill it out
# cwebber maybe that's too complicated :)
KevinMarks joined the channel
# cwebber or we could just decide this looks more like sunday than friday
# cwebber in general
# cwebber we haven't heard from the people heading to IWC whether in general they can make sunday
# cwebber s
# cwebber ugh
# cwebber I hate making these decisions
# cwebber :)
# cwebber so should we do friday or sunday for next week then?
# cwebber aaronpk: got it :)
# cwebber sandro: one person who expressed a very vague (not strong enough to make decisions on) interest in attending is in new zeland... there's no way we're getting that to align with a US + Europe schedule :)
KevinMarks_ joined the channel
# cwebber ok
# cwebber posted minuttes
# sandro My most serious effort to make a meeting that could accommodate people all over the world, with two time slots: https://www.w3.org/blog/egov/2012/03/19/atlantic-and-eurasian-egov-meetings/ It didn't work, fwiw.
# Loqi Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-09-minutes]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102953&oldid=0
dmitriz joined the channel
# cwebber sandro: :)
# cwebber I feel like the time slot we chose last time was pretty good though
# cwebber earlier than 9am is just kind of painful for west-coasters I think, which we have quite a few of
# cwebber but it still accomodates most of europe
# cwebber so I might put up another poll for the day
# cwebber but not the time
# cwebber for the long-term choice
# cwebber it really looks like sunday might be the best on that list
# cwebber but we'll re-poll
# cwebber aaronpk: in the meanwhile, what do you think, should we do next meeting on friday or sunday, given you probably can't make next week anyhow but still might be able to
# cwebber I fee like I'm being too wishy washy
# cwebber sandro: "commit to a strategy", my brother would say, trouncing me in any board game
# cwebber I'm going to lunch :)
KevinMarks joined the channel
KevinMarks and dmitriz joined the channel
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-09]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102955&oldid=102952
dmitriz and KevinMarks joined the channel
# 
tantek Next week's stub/draft agenda is up: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-16 please add anything else you think we should discuss!
KevinMarks_ and dmitriz joined the channel
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102960&oldid=0
KevinMarks joined the channel
# ajordan hey btw is the layout of https://github.com/swicg completely hosed for anyone else?
KevinMarks joined the channel
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102962&oldid=102900
# tantek and https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg updated as well ^^^. That's it for today. See you next week folks!
# cwebber ajordan: great :)
# cwebber I appreciate it ajordan
KevinMarks joined the channel
# 
aaronpk sandro: can you delete https://www.w3.org/wiki/SWICG so I can move https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG onto it? or you can do the move.
dmitriz joined the channel
# cwebber putting up the new ActivityPub logo
# cwebber omg it looks soooo gooooood
# cwebber https://activitypub.rocks/ yeah!
# JanKusanagi nice
sandro joined the channel
# cwebber has no strong preference, bikes away from this shed :)
# cwebber I agree with the terms I and W in there
# cwebber I do think SocialCG is easier to say
# cwebber both are compelling points
# cwebber compelling enough for me to not care :)
# cwebber pick a name and a pronunciation and we'll go with it
dmitriz_ joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme SWIG++
# KjetilK There's the Semantic Web Interest Group, though
# KjetilK I don't know if it is formally active or we're just a bunch of people pretending it is ;-)
# cwebber oof
# aaronpk according to this the charter ended in 2016 https://www.w3.org/2006/07/swig-charter.html but that's not that long ago
# cwebber I think we shouldn't step on toes there
# cwebber the #swig channel is still very active on freenode
dmitriz joined the channel
# cwebber I dunno, SocialCG isn't that bad is it?
# cwebber what if we put very explicitly in the branding
# cwebber that it's about the web, and it's about incubation
# cwebber swinc I guess is ok, though SocialCG sounds like a clear continuation of this
# cwebber and I agree with sandro that it "tells something" when you hear it, without expansion
KevinMarks_ and KevinMarks joined the channel
# cwebber at aaronpk's suggestion, I took a stab at emphasizing what the Web and Incubator parts of the group are on the wiki page so we might still keep the SocialCG as the offical shorthand but make it very clear how Web and Incubator apply
# cwebber aaronpk: sandro: https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG#Description WDYT?
# cwebber if you think it's good we can put it on the wordpress'y homepage of the group
# aaronpk :sigh: this is what happens when you start working on the test suite... finding all sorts of new edge cases https://github.com/w3c/websub/issues/103
# cwebber aaronpk: heh, erk
# cwebber :)
KevinMarks joined the channel
# cwebber aaronpk: having a lot of issues with the "testing the client" side of things that are similar
# cwebber a lot of it seems to be asking the client to confirm what they do/don't see happen
# cwebber aaronpk: hope you aren't federating with https://slowpoke.example/
# cwebber :)
# cwebber aaronpk: I'll set up and announce the call stuff later tomorrow morning btw... I gotta prep dinner for my brother who's coming over.
# cwebber nice work aaronpk