#social 2017-05-16
2017-05-16 UTC
# 
Loqi Strugee made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2017-05-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102991&oldid=102971
KevinMarks and KevinMarks_ joined the channel
# Loqi Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102992&oldid=102991
KevinMarks joined the channel
timbl and KevinMarks joined the channel
KevinMarks, eprodrom and tantek joined the channel
# 
astronouth7303 a wiki software that... works
KevinMarks joined the channel
# eprodrom trackbot, start meeting
RRSAgent joined the channel
# 
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/16-social-irc
# Loqi eprodrom: tantek left you a message 3 days, 17 hours ago: as ben_thatmustbeme pointed out https://chat.indieweb.org/social/2017-05-12/1494549526970000 as2.rocks appears to be unresponsive / not found - any chance you can fix this? The AS2 PRs (hopefully soon to be RECs) link directly to as2.rocks (as I'm sure you know :) )
Zakim joined the channel
# 
ben_thatmustbeme present+
# eprodrom present+
# ben_thatmustbeme *sigh*
# ben_thatmustbeme scribenick:ben_thatmustbeme
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC:approval of minutes form last week
# eprodrom PROPOSED approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-09-minutes as minutes for 9 May 2017 telecon
# ben_thatmustbeme chair: eprodrom
# ben_thatmustbeme scribe: Ben Roberts
# eprodrom +1
# eprodrom RESOLVED approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-09-minutes as minutes for 9 May 2017 telecon
# ben_thatmustbeme does not see him on the call
# ben_thatmustbeme oh sandro just joined the call
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: charter extension and rechartering
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: we voted to request 6 month extension and we feel we would do a better quality of work
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: its not going to be as smooth as i was hoping, last week i had the impression it would be a straight forward thing, turns out not to be the case in that...
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: A couple years ago there was a rule added that groups cannot be extended past 6 months without talking to the AB
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: some other groups have hit this as well in the past
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: if you could find examples, that would be helpful
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102993&oldid=102992
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-09-minutes]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102994&oldid=102953
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: bottom line is we have to ask the AC for this, there is no specified response on how this works
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: in the past other groups just rechartered instead of asking for another extension for the AC
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the only other I can think of is HTML media and that was a whole other issue
# ben_thatmustbeme ... we might be the first group to try to do this without a charter scope change and without any formal objections in our history
# ben_thatmustbeme ... it doesn't normally make a lot of sense to just do this short extension again
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i don't feel like its really proper for us to recharter right now as it would mean we have to figure out new scope in the next week
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: whats driving this is really increased interest in our existing scope, we've got 2 RECs out, 2 more that are about to become RECs, we're seeing developer interest spiking this calendar year, multiple different specifications
# ben_thatmustbeme ... so we want to extend our charter to take that developer input into consideration for our specs that are in CR and our specs that are in PR / REC there is a chance to do revisions where developers are evolving that technology
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i believe that is all in our current scope
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the specs with additional extensions that developers are working on as well
# ben_thatmustbeme ... thats how i would explain it to W3M (?) myself
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the first extension was that we needed time to finish wrapping up our specs, but the situation has changed now
KevinMarks joined the channel
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i have no trouble convincing W3M about that, whats left is we need to convince AC, but there is no precedent for what we need on that
# ben_thatmustbeme ... unless there is some issue the AC has with it, i think it seems like this will happen
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i think if we can craft the message I think we will mostly see positive response from the AC
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i don't want to take up more WG time on this
# ben_thatmustbeme ... you and i can work out the details
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i do feel like with the uncertainty here we should TRY to get to CR exit by the time our charter is up
# ben_thatmustbeme ... and make our little back-log of things if we get more time
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i think thats the responsible way to approach it
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i think thats true
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i should be able to get it to the AC, maybe tomorrow
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: it sounds like we have a plan going forward, is there anything else needed from the WG?
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i don't think so
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: meeting next week
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: any objections to meeting on the 23rd?
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i cannot make it, but tantek would be chairing anyway
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: with no objections, lets plan on doing next week
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: PRs
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: AS2 and Micropub, amy and i sent of the transition request for those yesterday
# ben_thatmustbeme i don't see any issue with as2 going to REC next week
# ben_thatmustbeme micropub might have some small issues, not a lot of response, and one minor, non-formal objection
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i'll let you know if those turn out to be issues
# eprodrom ack aaronp
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: i just had a quick quesiton, in terms of not a lot of responses, is there something we can do for that? how can we help?
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: if it turns out that its not enough, i will go out and try to get more people to respond
# ben_thatmustbeme ... in both these cases, if theres a problem, i'll let you know
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: its odd in that we don't see much use in member companies, there are things like micro.blog launching with this as their main client API.
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i've never seen this happen at W3C before
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: again, we'll deal with it if it becomes an issue
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: its more just a question, for me, of is it good for the web
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: we have one outstanding issue on AS2, it feels like an either/or issue about breaking out a section of the vocab document. are we at a point where making editorial edits is not worth the work?
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: its ok to still do changes, sort-of, its also kind of annoying, so i don't know how important it is
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i feel like its useful for adoption, its interesting but not crucial so i will try to resolve this with amy
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: if you can do it sooner, the better, i'd like to publish next tuesday
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: we don't usually see editorial changes between PR and REC, so its probably better to err on the side of safety and it may be better to leave it to the errata
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: basically its that amy suggested a primer and one section of the doc has a lot of implementation notes, she suggested we edit those out and move it to a primer
# Loqi Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-16]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102995&oldid=102993
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the other option is that if we want to create a primer after this, it would be duplicating some of this in a seperate primer
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: it think it would be better to not make edits that are not in response to AC comments
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: i'm comfortable with that, i will discuss it with amy
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: CRs
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i haven't been able to make any edits on PTD
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber2: i have been working on the test suite, i've gotten pretty far on the client to server side stuff, but the test suite succeeded at being a test suite and i found some parts i was missing
# ben_thatmustbeme ... lets have the goal be to send out requests for people to test out that portion of the test suite next week
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: next up is websub
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: for websub, we have 1 issue that i want to talk about, its here (irc link)
# ben_thatmustbeme the spec says to always return a 2xx even with invalid signatures
# ben_thatmustbeme ... no one had any issues with allowing it to return anything, 4xx for issues for example
# ben_thatmustbeme ... it doesn't effect interop
# ben_thatmustbeme ... i went ahead and made the change in the spec already
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: is this change reflected in the test suite?
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: yes
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: have you seen any implementors that depended on 2xx reply?
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: if it has a correct signature, it still requires 2xx, it only effects bad signatures which you can't really test for
# ben_thatmustbeme and some people wanted it to be able to return 410 gone for example
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: it makes a lot of sense to me, i've never been in the position of not being able to return accurate error codes, so this makes sense
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: makes sense to me too
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: i don't think we need a full vote, just having it noted in the minutes
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: do we need to make a new CR?
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: this was merged in 7 days ago, the question is it a normative features
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: because its loosening the constraints, it could technically be checking it for that exact error code...
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: but it would have to be sending a bad request
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: yeah, this seems to be a non-substantive change
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: this is non-breaking, non-substative, but still a normative change
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: there are 2 other issues in that discussion, there are some added text for how to migrate subscribers
# ben_thatmustbeme cannot hear all words, but trying
# ben_thatmustbeme ... the other potentially problematic one is about (link in irc) which is that hubs recognize 410
# ben_thatmustbeme ... it comes out of the previous issue of how to handle specific responses from the error after it gets a 410
# ben_thatmustbeme this would change logic
# ben_thatmustbeme but it can be an extension as the spec would now allow 410
# ben_thatmustbeme was about to ask that as well
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: aaronpk just to be clear
# ben_thatmustbeme can summarize
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: are we looking to a resolution to this?
# ben_thatmustbeme aaronpk: no, i just wanted to point out that it is an open issue
# ben_thatmustbeme ... is it even something we should consider to the spec or just leave it as an extension
# ben_thatmustbeme <ben_thatmustbeme> i'm +1 extension
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: again, if this is going to reset our clock perhaps we should leave it as a spec extension until we know for sure we have a group extension
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: that makes sense, i'm still waiting to hear, there are a lot of pubsubhubbub implementations out there, i'm waiting to see how many of them are compliant
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i'm looking for ones like github or mastodon
# ben_thatmustbeme lots of people have used off the shelf pubsubhubbub for years
# ben_thatmustbeme our goal was to not break things there
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: GNUSocial would also be a good one here
# eprodrom ack cwebber2
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber2: would this be something good to bring to the community group friday
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: the testing against websub, definitely
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i think we should ask ALL implementations showing up to submit implemention reports, since i think they all support it
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: anything else on websub?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: if we want a new CR, we need a resolution
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: do you have a changes section?
# eprodrom PROPOSED publish new CR for WebSub based changes listed at https://w3c.github.io/websub/#changes-from-11-april-2017-cr-to-this-version
# ben_thatmustbeme <ben_thatmustbeme> can we add bit about not resetting the clock
# ben_thatmustbeme <ben_thatmustbeme> +1
# eprodrom +1
# eprodrom RESOLVED publish new CR for WebSub based changes listed at https://w3c.github.io/websub/#changes-from-11-april-2017-cr-to-this-version
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: any other items?
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: any other doc statuses?
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: assuming we get REC published next week, we should ping amy to update SWP accordingly
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i'm fine giving a blanket, SWP can be updated any time a document status changes
# ben_thatmustbeme TOPIC: SWICG
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber2: we have a meeting this friday (link in irc)
# ben_thatmustbeme we have also not settles on a weekly time
# ben_thatmustbeme people voted in the last meeting they want it weekly, but i'd encourage you to fill it in
# ben_thatmustbeme this would be for every week
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: that leaves us with, i have a note about cwebber2's representation
# ben_thatmustbeme cwebber2: i joined the verifiable claims WG, but that does some legal things
# ben_thatmustbeme ... their call is at the exact same time as this group
# ben_thatmustbeme sandro: i know we picked this time to allow for amy, but she is on the move now
# ben_thatmustbeme tantek: she is in japan now then to europe next week, then completely unknown
# ben_thatmustbeme oops
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom: we need to set up a poll for our weekly polls
# ben_thatmustbeme s/polls/meetings/
# eprodrom trackbot, end meeting
# RRSAgent I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/16-social-minutes.html trackbot
# ben_thatmustbeme oh, btw, new MF2 parser released :)
# ben_thatmustbeme for anyone intested
# ben_thatmustbeme i completely rewrote the ruby parser
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-23]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102997&oldid=0
# ben_thatmustbeme minutes posted https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-05-16-minutes
# Loqi Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-05-16-minutes]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102998&oldid=0
# Loqi Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/AccountDiscovery]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=102999&oldid=102989
# ben_thatmustbeme indeed
# ben_thatmustbeme eprodrom++ for getting as2.rocks back up
# Loqi Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=103000&oldid=102962
timbl joined the channel
# astronouth7303 cwebber2: both? List of things that are definitely ok to change, list of things that are definitely not ok, and warn for anything not on either list?
timbl, KevinMarks_ and KevinMarks joined the channel