#social 2017-05-10

2017-05-10 UTC
KevinMarks joined the channel
#
aaronpk \o/ https://github.com/w3c/websub/tree/master/implementation-reports
#
aaronpk alright, who's going to file the first implementation report!
#
ajordan aaronpk: whooo!
#
ajordan that's awesome!
timbl joined the channel
#
aaronpk ? https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/issues/2923
#
Loqi [aaronpk] #2923 PubSubHubbub notification is missing content-type header
#
aaronpk also: https://github.com/w3c/websub/pull/104
#
Loqi [aaronpk] #104 add a section on subscription migration for publishers
KevinMarks joined the channel
#
aaronpk aaand if my last websub PR is merged, that addresses all of the outstanding issues
#
ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk++
#
Loqi aaronpk has 79 karma in this channel (1310 overall)
KevinMarks, strugee, KevinMarks_ and dmitriz joined the channel
#
Loqi Aaronpk made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102971&oldid=102960
#
cwebber hey aaronpk
#
cwebber I'm thinking for the long-term polling of times, I'm going to suggest a choice of friday, saturday, or sunday at either 11:00-12:30 EST or 12:00-13:30 EST
#
cwebber aaronpk: how do you feel about that?
#
cwebber it seems like SocialWG meetings very frequently go to 90 minutes anyway
#
cwebber it doesn't seem like the SocialCG is likely to be less based on that first meeting
#
aaronpk you want to plan for a 90 minute call?
#
aaronpk won't that just mean it runs over to 2 hours then?
#
cwebber aaronpk: ha well maybe that's true
#
cwebber ok I'm fine with planning for 60
#
aaronpk yeah i think we should stick to 60
#
cwebber ok, I'm fine with that
#
cwebber aaronpk: otherwise you think options are good for the poll?
#
aaronpk what's the reason you don't want any options during other weekdays?
#
cwebber aaronpk: ok, I'm fine adding weekday options
#
cwebber obviously we shouldn't do tuesday though :)
#
cwebber because of existing socialwg
#
aaronpk obvs
#
cwebber aaronpk: I'll add all non-tuesday days then.
#
cwebber should I put both 11-12 and 12-13 or just do the latter?
#
aaronpk both timeslots are good though, they're both reasonable in most timezones
#
aaronpk unfortunately they don't work great for asia, but we don't have many people from that region yet and there obviously isn't a timezone that's during the middle of the day for everyone
#
cwebber aaronpk: yeah
#
cwebber aaronpk: https://doodle.com/poll/rnnsf2y2fgmiq8zb
#
aaronpk lol found a bug on doodle
#
aaronpk their new interface is not super great
#
ben_thatmustbeme yeah, not great at all
#
cwebber web 8.0
#
cwebber aaronpk: https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2017-05-19
#
aaronpk cwebber++
#
Loqi cwebber has 18 karma
#
aaronpk i changed it to 16:00 UTC
#
aaronpk instead of 4pm GMT
#
cwebber aaronpk: sounds good
#
aaronpk how do you get other timezones to show up on that worldtimebuddy link?
tantek joined the channel
#
cwebber aaronpk: hm I dunno actually, no idea how that query parameter should be parsed other than the obvious date bit
#
cwebber aaronpk: I might try just making a new one
#
tantek good morning
#
cwebber moin moin tantek
#
cwebber TZAG
#
tantek what is TZAG?
#
cwebber Time Zone Appropriate Greeting... was a popular replacement for "good morning" or "good night" in the ostatusphere back in the days when identi.ca was big at least
#
cwebber I like it
#
aaronpk cwebber: i replaced the link to one that actually works like expected
#
cwebber :)
#
cwebber aaronpk: sounds good
#
tantek cwebber: good day then! (good night being reserved for departure :) )
#
cwebber TZAF is Time Zone Appropriate Farewell, but is less used :)
#
tantek checks logs
#
tantek sandro, this is unnecessarily personal and inaccurate https://chat.indieweb.org/social/2017-05-09#t1494360872903000 not cool
#
Loqi [sandro] It's pure insider speak, to some group Tantek is inside
#
tantek swicg is already the shortname in the CG URL, why are we re-bikeshedding it to something else? https://www.w3.org/community/swicg/ cc: cwebber aaronpk
#
cwebber tantek: I've already said my piece about this, which is basically: I don't hold super strong opinions, I think it's dangerous to get stuck in bikeshed territory, so if others come to an agreement I'm fine with it. However I do think SocialCG is easier to say and indicates a clear continuity from the SocialWG which is why I have a slight preference (and as you may have seen I talked with aaronpk to add Web and Incubator very clearly to
#
cwebber https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG#Description
#
cwebber but I really think we shouldn't spend a lot of time on a battle over this
#
cwebber I think a decision should be made, and we should move forward with itt.
#
cwebber *it
#
tantek call it social cee gee verbally if you want, no objection to that. I'm merely objecting to re-bikeshedding another shortname (e.g. that goes in URLs) after we already have one
#
tantek we made a decision, the official CG page is https://www.w3.org/community/swicg/
#
tantek so the burden of proof IMO is on anyone who wants to change it from that
#
cwebber I'm stepping out of this battle
#
cwebber let me know when people who care have come to a conclusion
#
tantek cwebber: you can't, you're a co-chair of the swicg
#
tantek you don't get to step out of discussions involving the CG
#
cwebber tantek: :P
#
cwebber ok
bwn joined the channel
#
tantek your responsibility as a co-chair is to manage conflict toward to a consenus, not to avoid or even force a resolution
#
cwebber well, what I've said is: I've already put in my vote but I'm fine with whatever. I'm happy to manage conflict towards a consensus, but it seems like you and sandro are the ones in disagreement primarily
#
cwebber and sandro hasn't responded
#
cwebber so yes, let's get this wrapped up
#
cwebber I'd like a resolution before the next meeting happens
#
cwebber and fwiw my editing the page was an attempt to resolve that conflict
#
tantek it's not about you putting in a vote or not, more about you attempting to describe overlap / pros/cons to get people closer
#
cwebber by making it clear the Incubation and Web side of things
#
cwebber tantek: aside from the Incubation and Web side of things being front and center
#
cwebber is there another reason you prefer swicg?
#
cwebber I guess also that "it was already named that"?
#
tantek yeah I prefer to disincentivize bikeshedding without a significant reason
#
tantek i.e. one person deciding to make a change and pushing it is not a signficant reason, even if they rally others by repetition
#
cwebber tantek: I think the "SocialCG is an easier name to understand" was a reasonable thing to raise, and I also think keeping Web and Incubator in there was a reasonable point
#
tantek because that incentivizes singled-handed politics, which is a bad thing to encourage
#
tantek cwebber, right, I'm only talking about the shortname. how you pronounce it is up to whoever
#
cwebber tantek: so I *was* trying to avoid bikeshedding by hitting the middle ground: having the easier to understand name that doesn't require expansion, but making our priorities clear up front
#
tantek I don't understand how any change to https://www.w3.org/community/swicg/ was any attempt to avoid bikeshedding, I think that's my confusion
#
cwebber tantek: just to be clear, would you also be open to a change to the name of SocialCG with clear prioritization of that name?
#
tantek cwebber, I'm opposed to re-opening a discussion of something we decided in a f2f, specifically, in Lisbon where we decided to create https://www.w3.org/community/swicg/
#
cwebber tantek: bikeshedding to me means keeping this going back and forth. hence me saying I'm okay with keeping the original name or going with socialcg but I'd like a resolution
#
cwebber tantek: ok, I don't remember that, maybe we should look at the minutes
#
cwebber tantek: I don't know what sandro meant about "something tantek is involved in" or how that's relevant btw, and I wasn't responding to that bit
#
tantek yeah I don't know about that either so that's why I called sandro on it above
#
cwebber (I'm still confused about that)
#
cwebber tantek: the move to SocialCG to me as something that made sense was "it's something we can say without macroexpanding, and it'll be useful to the group"
#
tantek I'm assuming it was an off the cuff remark from sandro and he didn't really mean anything by it
#
cwebber probably :)
#
tantek cwebber, regardless if it "makes sense" to you or not, by doing that, you opened the bikeshedding pandora's box on this, to be clear.
#
cwebber I don't think raising changing the shorthand we refer to the group at at this early stage is a big problem
#
cwebber tantek: ok...
#
tantek other way around, if you're not solving a big problem, you shouldn't be raising changing the shorthand
#
cwebber tantek: well I'm sorry for doing that
#
tantek no problem, just trying to make clear the BoP and preferred default path for setting a good example moving forward
#
cwebber I also don't remember being the one doing the renaming to SocialCG though I supported it fwiw
#
cwebber but I don't really care who did it
#
cwebber IMO it's okay to raise the name change at this stage, we just need to decide what the *right thing* is and resolve it
#
ben_thatmustbeme yeah, we decided this months back https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-23-minutes
#
tantek checks wiki history :)
#
cwebber ben_thatmustbeme: I don't see swicg mentioned there
#
cwebber ben_thatmustbeme: we resolved on the fullname I think
#
cwebber but not the shortname
#
ben_thatmustbeme not by abbreviation
#
cwebber right I don't think the fullname is up for debate
#
tantek I see lots of references in the minutes to "Social Web Incubator CG ". I see zero references to "Social CG"
#
cwebber tantek: I partly think it's not helpful for you and I to keep discussing this at the moment without aaronpk and sandro also joining in
#
tantek cwebber, the usefulness is purely from a "how to chair this" viewpoint
#
tantek because it's up to us, as respective co-chairs to set a better example for everyone else
#
cwebber tantek: I think this is just about having a shorthand to abbreviate the name for
#
ben_thatmustbeme https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-11-17-minutes
#
cwebber tantek: right ok, can we wait to discuss this until sandro and aaronpk appear?
#
cwebber tantek: like I said, I'm *okay* with either resolution.
#
cwebber tantek: but since I'm not the one disagreeing primarily
#
cwebber I'd like to have the other participant involved
#
cwebber make sense?
#
tantek cwebber, I see just one reference to "new Social Web CG" from AnnBass in minutes, and I assume that's likely from minuting omission or just shorthand speak rather than any deliberate preference
#
cwebber ah ok
#
aaronpk where did the suggestion for changing to SocialCG come from in the first place? We had already established swicg in multiple places
#
cwebber tantek: I do see you suggesting swicg there
#
cwebber aaronpk: I'm not sure
#
cwebber aaronpk: I remember it coming up a few times but I don't remember the first time
#
aaronpk this is good chair practice ;-)
#
cwebber tantek: yes, I'm trying to do that
#
aaronpk this is going to happen a lot
#
tantek cwebber, in the minutes, social web incubator CG is introduced in "PROPOSED: We create a social web incubator CG ", not by me
#
ben_thatmustbeme the first noted mention of "SWICG" was https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-04-minutes
#
cwebber tantek: so, I think here's the source of the confusion.
timbl joined the channel
#
tantek and there is no mention of "swicg" in https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-23-minutes
#
ben_thatmustbeme but i remember after we resolved the full name we used that as an informat abbreviation as well, we joked about trying to pronounce it
#
cwebber the first version of this was created by aaronpk in november as a stub to talk about this https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=SocialCG&oldid=100782 and the swicg was also proposed as a name
#
aaronpk funny, MW doesn't preserve page names in the history
#
cwebber tantek: my *impression* is probably that different people probably, without any malice, thus came to different impressions of what the permanent shortname was going to be
#
cwebber but it was slightly up in the air
#
aaronpk that was originally created as Socialwg/swicg
#
cwebber ah right
#
cwebber aaronpk: ok
#
tantek steps back to let aaronpk and cwebber work this forward
#
ben_thatmustbeme https://www.w3.org/community/swicg/2016/11/18/call-for-participation-in-social-web-incubator-community-group/
#
Loqi Call for Participation in Social Web Incubator Community Group W3C Team | Posted on: November 18, 2016 The Social Web Incu...
#
cwebber I wish I was logging on this machine, I broke my irc setup a while ago so I can't grep my logs
#
aaronpk regardless of the outcome, I need a wiki admin to fix all the page names since I don't have delete privileges on the wiki which is required for some of the moves
#
ben_thatmustbeme community group was created with swicg right after that 11-17 meeting
#
cwebber this is also why I want sandro to appear here :)
#
cwebber again, nobody had any malicious attent here
#
cwebber I think that, whatever resolution we make, things will be a-ok :)
#
ben_thatmustbeme just trying to get a full history of what happened
#
cwebber tantek: aaronpk: let's wait for sandro to weigh in, ok? obviously there's a missing side of this conversation
#
cwebber and in order to finish it
#
cwebber we need to pull that in :)
#
cwebber we need to talk to sandro even if we move to swicg I think
#
sandro I'm actually here, but omfg I don't want to argue about this. I think SWICG is a terrible name for something, being unpronouceable and meaningless and seven syllables. And unguessable, in that SWI could be lots of things.
#
cwebber :)
#
cwebber I agree with you sandro fwiw
#
sandro Whereas SocialCG has none of those problems.
#
cwebber but I also think we're creating a cosmic storm out of this
#
sandro To my percept, Tantek is creating the storm. Everyone else seemed fine with SocialCG.
#
csarven cwebber CS: Naming things are hard
#
sandro naming things is indeed hard.
#
tantek sandro, "everyone else" agreed on Social Web Incubator CG at Lisbon
#
cwebber tantek: and also fwiw aaronpk and I talked about this over PM last night, and we tried to come to a resolution by adding the Social and Web things to that page
#
tantek you're pushing for SocialCG, and I'm a bit surprised by how strongly
#
cwebber tantek: and I wanted to run it by you
#
cwebber tantek: I'm honestly surprised anyone's pushing this so hard as a battle like this
#
cwebber we don't need to fight over it
#
cwebber can we just have a straw poll?
#
cwebber and resolve and be done?
#
cwebber better yet
#
tantek cwebber, I don't like when a bigger group in person decides something, and then a *smaller* group of *insiders* changes it later *online*
#
tantek that's the bigger problem here
#
tantek we made a decision at a f2f
#
cwebber can we poll and have a resolution *at the next Social Web Incubator Community Group meeting?
#
cwebber tantek: I understand that
#
tantek with a lot of people in the room
#
cwebber tantek: you're right, we should discuss things
#
tantek so re-opening that deserves a big important reason
#
tantek especially to a *smaller* group
#
tantek straw polled or not
#
cwebber tantek: so how about we bring it up at the next meeting and time-limit the debate
#
cwebber tantek: we'll put up both names, ask people to vote
#
sandro +1 letting a poll at the next CG meeting decide it
#
cwebber tantek: and then we'll consider the case closed.
#
cwebber tantek: are you good with that?
#
cwebber aaronpk: are you?
#
tantek I understand sandro's verbal / pronounciation objections and am sympathetic
#
csarven I'm curious, is this something that needs this group's decision or can it be simply handled by the CG itself?
#
cwebber csarven: yeah that's what I'm proposing
#
csarven To start it off, I get it.. this WG was involved, but after the CG is created, can't they rename or whatever they want .. isn't it under their 'jurisdiction' at that point?
#
cwebber tantek: are you ok with that? it seems like an easy way to let the group that will be living with the name answer it
#
tantek cwebber, not sure, I can see both sides of that agency tbh
#
cwebber and we can just end this discussion and get back to the work we all I'm sure would love to be doing :)
#
cwebber tantek: ok, I have a lot of stuff to do, but as you said here
#
cwebber <tantek> cwebber, I don't like when a bigger group in person decides something, and then a *smaller* group of *insiders* changes it later *online*
#
cwebber
#
cwebber to me, the group that's the most affected by this is itself the Social Web Incubator Community Group
#
cwebber so if anyone should have a say
#
cwebber they should
#
tantek that's much better chair-like reasoning
#
tantek I appreciate that
#
cwebber tantek: :)
#
ben_thatmustbeme indeed
#
cwebber tantek: how about you come to the next meeting and we can have people present their sides, and we'll time-limit so we can both come to a resolution but also in a timeframe that will keep people happy
#
tantek cwebber, my biggest interest here is in seeing the issue chaired well. secondarily I may opinions about any particular option.
#
cwebber tantek: we can postpone a final resolution until when you can be there.. I'm not sure whether you're making the 19th
#
tantek may *have
#
cwebber we can do the week after also.
#
sandro I suggest a time limit of 15 seconds. Post the poll, and let people decide. It would be an embarassment to have a prolonged discussion.
#
tantek cwebber, tbh I don't need to be there for discussion of specific options like that as I think you now get the larger issue of respecting previous consensus when re-opening an issue
#
cwebber tantek: sure, I also didn't realize there was previous consensus.
#
cwebber tantek: which is probably my mistake, and maybe I should have checked the logs beforehand
#
tantek well it got created, there had to be consensus ;)
#
cwebber well that's not necessarily true
#
cwebber things get created all the time by individuals
#
tantek not so much in W3C. things get created due to RESOLVED
#
cwebber things can be created without much discussion
#
cwebber ok
#
tantek (except wiki pages which are more of a free for all)
#
cwebber tantek: well regardless, it seems like we have a path forward
#
tantek cwebber, hence the need for minutes, resolutions that can be cited etc.
#
ben_thatmustbeme just realized that argument was ended by decision of chair-itory
#
cwebber there's a comic I like called A Lesson Is Learned But The Damage Is Irreversible
#
cwebber thankdfully
#
cwebber I think the latter part of it is not true here :)
#
cwebber so let's move forward, and onward.
#
sandro My vote has changed because of new information about the role and purpose of the CG. I thought it would be a place where people would come with ideas about how to improve the SW specs. What I see it as now is quite different.
#
tantek cwebber, your instinct to see how the new (growing) population of the CG thinks is a good one
#
cwebber sandro: well, the CG is already finding its footing after the first call, which was a good one
#
tantek cwebber, I still believe strongly in the importance of focus to give a group a chance of success, and in particular "web" and "incubation" are key focusing details, as shown by past history (like 2010 FSWS discussions and following FSWS discussions) that demonstrated that lacking those two, you get mass divergence
#
tantek normally a WG has a charter to keep focus / scope. a CG has no such formality AFAIK
#
tantek so all it has is its name as a reminder of focus
#
cwebber tantek: focus is good, and I think it's good to both focus and iterate
#
cwebber I'm a big believer in focusing, and sometimes re-focusing. even the SocialWG had to re-focus partway through
#
tantek the other possibility is to depend on the chairs to keep focus, but that puts more responsibility on your and aaronpk's shoulders
#
tantek because basically then you have to be proactive about calling stuff out of scope or premature
#
cwebber right.
#
tantek rather than letting any discussion just take up time
#
tantek and that's much harder
#
cwebber speaking of letting discussions take up time :)
#
cwebber I have some tasks I have to get done by the end of the day!
#
tantek because when chairs do that, absent an explicit charter, then minority opinions feel like they are being personally mistreated
#
cwebber right
#
tantek instead of objectively being evaluated
#
tantek which is worse
#
cwebber tantek: I appreciate that, and I do want to keep things focused
#
cwebber it seems like we have a good path on this one.
#
cwebber onwards and upwards :)
#
tantek you can also attempt to keep track of scope discussions
#
tantek e.g. both priorities, what the CG was created to work on, and examples of things out of scope.
#
tantek writing those things down will help you point to them instead of making it a personal argument
#
tantek so when someone shows up claiming they've solved federation with blockchain over XMPP and have a dozen (claimed) implementers, you can say, um, maybe this isn't the right group for you
#
tantek purely hypothetical example of course ;)
#
cwebber tantek: looks like you won't be at the next meeting because of the IWC stuff
#
cwebber tantek: so we'll put it on the topic for meeting after next
#
cwebber in the meanwhile we'll just refer to it either by the full name or confusingly by both names :)
#
cwebber SocialWICG
#
cwebber alright, back to work
#
tantek ah, I think the legacy that sandro seems to be referring to (correct me if I'm wrong) may be the WICG
#
tantek just thought of that from your remark cwebber
#
aaronpk what is the WICG?
#
tantek https://www.w3.org/community/wicg/
#
tantek you may want to re-use at least some aspects of "incubation" from that
#
aaronpk lol
#
tantek or consider doing so
#
aaronpk "We are super excited to announce the launch of the W3C’s Web Platform Incubator Community Group (WICG). Despite the funny name (“the Why-See-Gee, really?”), this is a great new initiative that seeks to make it easier for developers to propose new platform features for standardization."
#
tantek a-ha! precedence for funny names for incubator groups! :)
#
aaronpk maybe being self-deprecating in your initial announcement isn't the greatest idea
#
sandro Yes, that's correct. If wickigg is in your world swickigg makes some sense.
#
tantek *precedent
#
aaronpk apparently it's pronounced "why see gee"
#
tantek so clearly SWICG should have a pronounciation guide
#
aaronpk maybe the "C" can be pronounced as an "N"
#
sandro -1 any name that needs a pronunciation guide
#
tantek "SWICG, pronounced "so-shill cee gee", the W and I are silent but deadly to distracting and unfocusing proposals"
#
tantek ;)
#
cwebber everyone is welcome to discuss here as long as we remember we're not going to make resolutions until the call :)
#
tantek I'm more interested in hearing what sandro has learned about extension possibilities (since he said yesterday he might know today :) )
#
cwebber oh I'm interested in that too of course :)
#
DenSchub let me casually interrupt you all.
#
DenSchub so, after the naming discussion, let's have some actual spec talk. ;) (jftr, i am one of the diaspora core devs and in fact somewhat the project manager) after we.. lost contact to our person in charge of communicating between this group and us, we sadly lost track of the work here and we basically have no idea what you are doing - which is a shame. since i want to get back up to see if/what/how we can
#
DenSchub implement, is https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/ still a good start for me?
#
tantek goes to wiki garden
#
Loqi [Amy Guy] Social Web Protocols
#
tantek welcome DenSchub!
#
cwebber DenSchub: that's a great start, yes
#
cwebber and welcome :)
#
sandro tantek, alas, no answer. The decision was to give me some homework.
#
tantek sandro, figures :)
#
cwebber https://joindiaspora.com/posts/9277927#9e2a6c6017cf013582074860008dbc6c I also see you'll likely be at the next call, great :)
#
cwebber and that you're trolling us on the names ;)
#
DenSchub sorry for that, but it had to be done.
#
cwebber it's ok, the trolling is welcome :)
#
tantek DenSchub, pardon the passionate bikeshedding, we do actually get quite a bit done despite what the past hour or so of logs may indicate ?
#
DenSchub tantek: I know you, so I actually believe that! :p
#
sandro but it would be great to find some real member support, for lots of reasons. I did the mental excersise of reading the ACList for a while, and for every member I was familiar with, trying to imagine how I'd explain this work to them, in a way they'd be interested.
#
tantek sandro, indeed. the PR vote is a bit of a sniff test too
#
sandro One of the more interesting fantasy conversations was Dropbox.
#
tantek if we can't get AC votes for our well tested / implemented PRs, then what?
#
tantek wonders if anyone in the AC is a quiet supporter but doesn't want to risk showing an openly decentralized hand to the likes of FB, Twitter etc.
#
tantek notes that Twitter locked his @t account last night without any specific reason or recent action
#
ben_thatmustbeme aww loki didn't pick up the content of that page.
#
cwebber tantek: huh... weird
#
ben_thatmustbeme s/loki/loqi/
#
tantek cwebber, as we sometimes say in indieweb circles, silos gonna silo
#
ben_thatmustbeme need to make a work out getting mf2 in to diaspora
#
aaronpk I don't see any actual HTML on that page
#
ben_thatmustbeme i think they are the only ones left without it
#
tantek is half tempted to walk into the Twitter office on Market street with physical ID and demand to be verified and see what happens
#
aaronpk tantek: LOL
#
aaronpk bring someone to shadow you and video that
#
tantek OMS let me see if any of my press pals would be up for that
#
DenSchub ben_thatmustbeme: feel free to ping me whenever you want if you want to talk about something. i'm left with a lot of spec-reading, but eh
#
ben_thatmustbeme lol, tantek that would be great
#
cwebber brb
cwebber2, KevinMarks, timbl, dmitriz, dmitriz_ and tantek joined the channel
#
sandro I hope I'm not overselling ActivityPub / ActivityStreams in current w3.org news item. "ActivityPub allows websites a direct social connection to user software, including Follow, Like, Share, and Comment, without an intermediate social network provider. " I know that's a strong statement than we normally make, but I feel like without it, no one gets it.
#
tantek sandro, by user software do you mean client software?
#
tantek The only worry I would have is saying something like "user software" like it exists without documented (e.g. impl reports) ActivityPub clients
#
tantek Historically the whole social space is littered with vapor and exaggerations and I really do not want to see an AP announcement criticized as "vapor". I might be being paranoid about this, but so many outlandish claims have been made over the years, that I worry.
#
tantek sandro, another thought experiment, would you be willing to similarly "sell" Micropub? E.g.
#
tantek "Micropub allows websites a direct social connection to user software, including Follow, Like, Share, and Comment, without an intermediate social network provider. "
#
tantek ah this item https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/6302
#
Loqi 9 May 2017 The Social Web Working Group invites implementation of a revised Candidate Recommendation of ActivityPub. Activit...
#
tantek a-ha no comments on W3C news items
#
tantek checks @W3C twitter
#
cwebber2 https://www.w3.org/blog/news/?s=micropub I think micropub has had such statements
#
tantek https://twitter.com/w3c/status/862063326213308416
#
Loqi [@w3c] W3C Invites Implementations of ActivityPub http://ift.tt/2pwMc1F
#
cwebber2 from the same space
#
cwebber2 same with webmention
#
tantek no replies, so maybe I'm worried about nothing
#
tantek cwebber2 well at least we're consistent then!
#
tantek and we just punt it to Social Web Protocols to explain to people who actually pay attention to all our announcements as a set :)
#
tantek runs a search
#
sandro I've never heard of anyone reading a W3C news item, which leads me to be a bit more ... outspoken. Actually I was only thinking over it because I was going to tweet it.
#
sandro Twitter's much more likely to get engagement. Which is ... exactly the point, after all.
#
DenSchub "I've never heard of anyone reading a W3C news item" - i do!
#
tantek sandro, huh? Twitter engagement is exactly the point of what?
#
sandro The point of SWWG is to bring the kind of engagement folks (including brands) have on Twitter back to the Web.
#
tantek alright in searching Twitter for ActivityPub it looks mostly positive statements so not much to worry about
#
tantek though I'm only looking back about a month
#
tantek one request for impls: https://twitter.com/DataPup_/status/855969064723894272
#
Loqi [@DataPup_] Has anyone out there Actually implemented ActivityPub? at all?
#
tantek This is in French but sounds like a criticism of AP vs OStatus "start all over and over again"? https://twitter.com/Shnoulle/status/852623470412406784
#
Loqi [@Shnoulle] RT @kris #oStatus c'est fini maintenant c'est #activitypub https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/ On reprend tout à  zéro et on recommence
#
tantek The last thing I saw was a kerfuffle between Evan and Jason of (Diaspora IIRC?) from Evan's tweet
#
tantek https://twitter.com/jaywink/status/851841203897323521
#
Loqi [@jaywink] @evanpro @dustyweb modernity is also not defined by some dudes at W3C saying so. It is defined by experience from implementation. ActivityPub has nada.
#
tantek cwebber++ for handling that thread
#
Loqi cwebber has 19 karma
#
tantek somehow evan's tweet inspired @Jaywink to reply twice more https://twitter.com/jaywink/status/851840883817316352 and https://twitter.com/jaywink/status/851841331001511936
#
Loqi [@jaywink] @evanpro @dustyweb sorry but that is not just silly but a bit smug. ActivityPub isn't tried and certainly wasn't in any state last August.
#
tantek which makes me think that the problem is not one of exaggeration, but of putting other stuff down?
#
cwebber2 Jason and I have talked since then anyway
#
cwebber2 I think that's accurate
#
cwebber2 I think Jason was mostly annoyed at the top post of the thread
#
DenSchub tantek: just to clarify: jason is *NOT* part of diaspora.
#
DenSchub he decided to leave with a huge explosion and i'd rather not see his name associated with our project. sorry to be that harsh, but..
#
tantek thanks DenSchub, I vaguely remember he used to be? or we were considering him as an invited expert for that?
#
DenSchub he was, yeah
#
tantek ok thanks for the clarification
#
DenSchub and he was "our person" for the socialwg, but eh
#
cwebber2 I don't know the details of that, it does seem like Jason is not affiliated
#
cwebber2 Jason *has* made useful comments on AP issues since then, but it does seem like we should be clear that he's not part of Diaspora *now* at least
#
cwebber2 as for whatever that blowup was, I'm hesitant to bring it into here unless it needs to be though
#
cwebber2 DenSchub: but I def understand you want to draw distinctions as for who's actively participating
#
cwebber2 in Diaspora I mean
#
DenSchub not planned on going into details :)
#
cwebber2 k :)
#
tantek oh dear I'm finally looking at the AC poll for our current PRs/CRs and it's really confusing. not sure this is helpful now or if anyone else here besides Sandro or me can view this https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/socialweb/results but wow. I'm now not surprised that there have been fewer responses than I've usually seen for these things :/
#
sandro Yeah, the starting-at-CR thing is a huge mess.
#
sandro This is the improved form Amy and I worked out. It used to be much worse.
#
sandro Arguably we should have made a different WBS for each document. In retrospect, that would have been better.
#
tantek sandro - rather, what is a mess is one poll for all specs
#
tantek with different deadlines for each :/
#
tantek but yeah, restrospec etc.
#
tantek can't even type apparently
#
tantek *retrospect
#
sandro All but WebSub went to CR at about the same time, so one form seemed to make more sens then, but they went to PR at very different times.
#
tantek sandro, perhaps we can take this as input to for future chairs/contacts about survey creation for CRs
#
tantek also the average numeric results is a major WTF because they are more like radio button options rather than 1..7 numerical values
#
sandro My understanding is starting AC review at CR was pretty much a typo that no one really meant, and went by unimplemented for years.
timbl joined the channel
#
sandro Yeah, the average is silly. I'm surprised you can see the interface that has the average. Can you see the comments?
#
tantek no it was deliberate by the editor of the Process doc who apparently did not make a big deal of it and people in general didn't notice so that's how it slipped by :/
#
tantek yes now that I have the URL I can see the comments
#
sandro It's a sick joke that the process was messed up by someone using the process to subvert the process.
#
tantek sandro, I could share more about that but only in AB/W3M private space :(
#
tantek but yes, quite sick :(
#
aaronpk "You're not allowed to see the results of this questionnaire."
#
tantek can you see anything here? https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/showq
#
aaronpk yes
#
tantek figures none of these are "capability URLs" or if they are, #systeam will get a task to fix
#
tantek if you search for social
#
tantek what do you see?
#
aaronpk um,
#
aaronpk there is no "social" on the page, and no search box
#
tantek browser "search in the page
#
tantek "
#
aaronpk it's a very small page https://media.aaronpk.com/Screen-Shot-2017-05-10-15-44-16.png
#
sandro Ha, I'm so slow.... I just figured out what the 'birdsite' is, that everyone keeps talking about on mastodon.
#
sandro fails yet again to hep and cool and with it
#
tantek lolololol
#
tantek even got that one
#
sandro i just kind of assumed it was a big instance or something.... :-)
KevinMarks joined the channel