2017-07-18 UTC
# 00:32 cwebber2 well, the normalization and crypto libs were already there, so ;) # 00:32 xmpp-social [ajordan] ??? # 00:33 saranix Any chance you can export a normalized complex object with subojbects so we can see how it should look? # 00:33 cwebber2 saranix: this is using the graph based normalization, not the simpler key sorting normalizer, fwiw # 00:38 cwebber2 as you can see it was just one line of python to do the normalization # 00:38 saranix regarding content warnings-- since AP mandates html contents as default, I think it would be ok to do a microformats-esque '<span class="cw-warning">Might trigger furries</span><span class="cw-content">...</span> # 00:38 cwebber2 like the crypto lib, all the hard work was already done for me :) # 00:40 cwebber2 saranix: you could, though that's an extra layer of parsing to do to get metadata out of the html tho, it could just already be exposed in the already-parsed json structure # 00:40 saranix woah. I would've never figured out how to do that from reading the spec # 00:40 saranix cwebber2: abusing the json structure makes semantics where there aren't any # 00:41 cwebber2 ok, I don't agree there, but I don't want to argue it # 00:41 saranix and plus.. this came about because I'm writing my html sanitizer, and I'm whitelisting tags... and I don't see why it would be a big deal to whitelist a class name (I normally strip class attribute) # 00:41 saranix I need a way to do spoilers, and that's what I'm going to do, but if mastodon does it too, then we'd have 2 implementations! # 00:43 saranix It looks like hubzilla is working on activitypub at least lowkey, so they'll need it for their [spoiler] bbcode tag as well # 00:43 saranix it makes an easy 1->1 translation from markup to markup instead of trying to abuse the json structure # 00:47 saranix hmm... after reading the normalization about 10 times I think I finally understand the algo # 00:48 saranix where does that come from? and why? # 00:48 cwebber2 saranix: what you're looking at is rdf n-quads... that's the type of the object # 00:49 cwebber2 saranix: if you read up on n-quads, it should be easy to read... they're very simple # 00:49 saranix I thought #published describes the type # 00:49 saranix and why are no other types ^^qualified # 00:49 cwebber2 the complex part of that is really what order to put them in # 00:50 cwebber2 saranix: so they're assumed to be either just what they look like: strings, integers, uris... basically the primitives # 00:50 cwebber2 saranix: anyway, n-quads are pretty easy: they're really just subject, predicate, object # 00:51 saranix I just noticed it's word wrapping those . adjoined strings # 00:54 cwebber2 now you can see how you can have two extensions with "name", and it'll be unambiguous to meaning # 00:54 saranix so now reading this, that signing method actually does nothing to address the issues I raised earlier... # 00:55 saranix when I confused puck :P # 00:56 cwebber2 saranix: you mean about assurance about the entire embedded object # 00:56 saranix yeah, and doc versions, and which things you are or are not attesting to by calling out specific fields # 00:56 cwebber2 this gives you the option of doing either... if I signed the example I had here, it has the object embedded # 00:57 cwebber2 since the object didn't have an id, you can see it generated a blank node # 00:57 saranix yeah...it does NOT address it I guess. but any tiny update to any field invalidates the signature, and extensions become unpossible # 00:58 cwebber2 if you want updates to not change the signature, then you link to the object without the id I guess # 00:58 saranix all or nothing is not the same as half-way in between # 00:58 saranix the other option is half-way :-P # 00:58 saranix only signing specific fields # 00:59 saranix you can make a lot of semantic choices by what fields you decide to sign # 00:59 cwebber2 an RDF person might say you could choose to include or not include fields but I like to think of "you ought to include the whole object" I guess # 01:01 saranix !tell gargron regarding content warnings-- since AP mandates html contents as default, I think it would be ok to do a microformats-esque '<span class="cw-warning">Might trigger furries</span><span class="cw-content">...</span> # 01:01 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next bblfish, Loqi, timbl, xmpp-social, raucao and newton joined the channel
# 09:23 ajordan !tell cwebber2 at ben_thatmustbeme's suggestion I put a list of AP issues we're likely to cover at https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-07-18; hope that's okay (and that you agree with my prioritization). there's also the mediaUpload issue (which is *not* on that list) which I *thought* we decided to punt to today, although I might have been thinking about the likes/shares question instead # 09:23 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next # 09:25 ajordan !tell cwebber2 also I was kind of thinking we should clean up the issue tracker a bit? some things everybody's collectively agreed to handle it in the CG (like the private messages issue) or we've resolved to not handle in the core spec (e.g. revision ids)... would be nice to open new issues in the CG tracker and close w3c/activitypub issues in favor of the new ones. dunno if you agree with that # 09:25 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next Loqi, newton, newton_, newton__, timbl, KevinMarks and KevinMarks_ joined the channel
# 16:01 jaywink damn. got all ready for a meeting since a long time, even with audio - and it's not until an hour :D # 16:18 Loqi cwebber2: ajordan left you a message 6 hours, 55 minutes ago: at ben_thatmustbeme's suggestion I put a list of AP issues we're likely to cover at https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-07-18; hope that's okay (and that you agree with my prioritization). there's also the mediaUpload issue (which is *not* on that list) which I *thought* we decided to punt to today, although I might have been thinking about the likes/shares question instead # 16:18 Loqi cwebber2: ajordan left you a message 6 hours, 52 minutes ago: also I was kind of thinking we should clean up the issue tracker a bit? some things everybody's collectively agreed to handle it in the CG (like the private messages issue) or we've resolved to not handle in the core spec (e.g. revision ids)... would be nice to open new issues in the CG tracker and close w3c/activitypub issues in favor of the new ones. dunno if you agree with that # 16:19 cwebber2 ajordan: yeah it looks good, and yeah I think we should clean up the tracker... we need to be sure to apply the right labels though Loqi and tantek joined the channel
# 16:54 tantek I'm going to be joining the call ~10-15min late, so I'm hoping Evan is able to chair as we discussed last week - haven't heard one way or another. Otherwise I can officially chair as backup at 10:15 eprodrom joined the channel
# 16:58 eprodrom I thought we cancelled today's meeting à few weeks back # 16:58 cwebber2 eprodrom: <tantek> I'm going to be joining the call ~10-15min late, so I'm hoping Evan is able to chair as we discussed last week - haven't heard one way or another. Otherwise I can officially chair as backup at 10:15 # 16:58 cwebber2 eprodrom: we scheduled it because we had so much to cover :P # 16:59 cwebber2 we keep thinking we can keep a break and work keeps piling up # 16:59 aaronpk unless you already covered it with all the conversations over the weekend? # 16:59 eprodrom_ I was really surprised to see it on the wiki eprodrom_ joined the channel
# 17:00 ajordan aaronpk: I mean we covered a lot of ground on the weekend # 17:01 rhiaro is at another event with other people in the background, so staying muted eprodro57 joined the channel
RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim joined the channel
# 17:05 cwebber2 since ajordan went through a lot of this stuff with me and I'll need their help # 17:05 ben_thatmustbeme i'll try to scribe the the AP section if needed, i don't know if i'll have to leave early or not though # 17:06 cwebber2 eprodro57: looks like we have two weeks of minutes to review. I think for the 6-27 we have the wrong minutes... looks like the CG minutes... eprodrom joined the channel
# 17:07 cwebber2 cwebber2: I think the CG can deal with the CG's missing minutes part # 17:07 cwebber2 ben_thatmustbeme: I volunteer to track down the minutes for later # 17:08 cwebber2 eprodrom: ok instead of proposing to review the minutes for 6-27 let's review the minutes for 7-11 # 17:08 cwebber2 sorry looks like I must have put the minutes in the wrong place... no idea what happened with the wg minutes... Loqi joined the channel
# 17:12 eprodrom PROPOSAL: cancel meetings for 8/9 and 8/22 # 17:13 eprodrom PROPOSAL: cancel meetings for 8/8 and 8/22 # 17:13 rhiaro cwebber2: schedule extra CG meetings to get it out of your system :) # 17:14 eprodrom RESOLVED: cancel meetings for 8/8 and 8/22 # 17:14 ajordan rhiaro the problem is that there's too many normative changes # 17:15 ben_thatmustbeme ajordan, the group doesn't have to resolve on every normative change, only when its published # 17:15 cwebber2 eprodrom: tantek is not here yet, so I'd like to push PTD to the end of the agenda # 17:15 ajordan a good pattern so far has been working things out in the CG and then bringing them to the WG, but things still *have* to be brought here for a resolution # 17:15 eprodrom TOPIC: bridging ActivityPub and IndieWeb stack # 17:16 cwebber2 ajordan: this is something that came out of indieweb summit, and basically we think we can find a semi-decent way to bridge activtiypub and the indieweb stack # 17:16 cwebber2 ajordan: so the simplest by far is micropub, because we think it can be possible to write a website that can transform microformats into an ap activity # 17:16 cwebber2 ajordan: the tricky thing is mentions, there are two parts of this; AP->IW sites, and IW->AP # 17:17 cwebber2 ajordan: so AP->IW, my theory is that IW sites should be able to put a static paage on the root of the site # 17:17 cwebber2 ajordan: so any time an AP site mentions the actor at that site # 17:17 cwebber2 ajordan: all mutation and stuff will resolve to a bridge service that will construct things on the fly # 17:18 cwebber2 eprodrom: for it would be a facade server doing AP on one side or IW on the other? C2S is simple on this system, you use your preferred provider, and the bridge does transformations # 17:19 cwebber2 eprodrom: for S2S, what you're saying is that IW servers, if IW servers that support webmention, they should also have a way to expose AP server to server by handing that off to a bridge. that bridge would take anything coming to an inbox and translate it back # 17:19 cwebber2 ajordan: this does require the IW site to put the JSON file at the root # 17:19 cwebber2 ajordan: I should make it clear we put this at the root and then set the server to ? # 17:22 cwebber2 ajordan: if the IW site does not do this, you can have a situtation where you prefix this url with the bridge url, then you query the bridge url and get an actor back and all that # 17:22 cwebber2 eprodrom: from my point of view of discovery, if we're not solving on discovery, maybe we could have another discovery mechanism such as link headers, etc # 17:22 cwebber2 eprodrom: you should be able to get the json descriptor currently in AP # 17:22 cwebber2 eprodrom: if my site returns html you can do antoher discovery method # 17:22 jaywink thinking out aloud how possible signing requirements of AP or things like http signatures will affect this, as having these specified has been a hot topic in the last days here. Just thinking out loud. # 17:22 cwebber2 eprodrom: so could we expand AP to say in the erroneous situation where they return HTML instead of JSON, this is what you will do # 17:22 eprodrom <link rel="inbox" href="URL of bridge"> # 17:22 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme on the speaker queue # 17:22 cwebber2 feels like adding new discovery mechanisms adds a lot of complexity to ask implementers to do # 17:22 cwebber2 ajordan: if you're already going to do this if you're already adding this? # 17:23 cwebber2 eprodrom: if you're adding something with just html but can't do content negotiation # 17:23 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme on the speaker queue # 17:24 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme, (irc, only) on the speaker queue # 17:24 cwebber2 cwebber2: I think it would be nice, but it could be a MAY, it's already a lot of work # 17:24 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme on the speaker queue # 17:24 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro on the speaker queue # 17:24 cwebber2 eprodrom: also you could do rdfa or something similar # 17:25 cwebber2 eprodrom: probably not the most exciting thing for MF2 folks, but a possibility # 17:25 cwebber2 ajordan: seems like we're agreeing it's either a MAY or an extension # 17:25 tantek wait why are we talking about theoreticals? ("or even"?) # 17:25 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro on the speaker queue # 17:25 eprodrom ack ben_thatmustbeme # 17:25 cwebber2 ben_thatmustbeme: if you implement it as a MAY, doesn't it break federation? # 17:26 tantek At this point, it doesn't make any sense to include anything in the spec that's not at least semi-widely implemented / deployed like that # 17:26 cwebber2 eprodrom: yeah I think that's absolutely right and if that's not something we want to do let's not build two diferent stacks # 17:26 tantek rather than trying to be politically correct (or we can be politically correct in informative Notes) # 17:26 cwebber2 wants to note that I think the AP items we already have are gonna take a lot of time, and are def nomative, and if this is MAY it's maybe not normative # 17:26 cwebber2 ben_thatmustbeme: I don't think this is specific to bridging # 17:26 Zakim sees rhiaro, cwebber on the speaker queue # 17:27 cwebber2 ben_thatmustbeme: if you're going to support it it should be required # 17:27 rhiaro 2) Can we timebox this discussion and end it imminently because there's lots of AP stuff to go through? # 17:27 rhiaro 1) This bridging stuff can go in SWP if we settle it, not needed in AP # 17:27 Zakim rhiaro, you wanted to say (typing on irc only) # 17:27 tantek I think it can be in SWP if it's figured out, the point of the discussion is spec impacts # 17:27 Zakim sees cwebber, tantek on the speaker queue # 17:27 Zakim sees cwebber, tantek on the speaker queue # 17:28 Zakim sees cwebber, tantek on the speaker queue # 17:29 cwebber2 cwebber2: I think this shouldn't be rdfa, it could be embedded as json-ld as is done in schema.org things etc # 17:29 cwebber2 tantek: +1 on not doing rdfa, we shouldn't do normative text that's not deployed # 17:29 cwebber2 tantek: I agree with moving to SWP when it's figured out # 17:29 cwebber2 tantek: that's what I'm interested in, if it requires spec changes then it needs to be figured out asap # 17:30 cwebber2 eprodrom, you dropped out, tantek is temporarily saying we're moving on # 17:30 eprodrom Let's move on to the next topic # 17:30 eprodrom cwebber2: yep # 17:31 tantek oh dear to "database designs impacting features" seriously!?!? # 17:34 cwebber2 PROPOSAL: Rename publicInbox to sharedInbox and allow it to both post public posts and posts to followers # 17:35 ben_thatmustbeme sandro: my one concern is if someone posts to this, thats malformed, it doesn't end up public when they didn't want it to # 17:35 cwebber2 PROPOSAL: Rename publicInbox to sharedInbox and allow it to both post public posts and posts to followers # 17:36 aaronpk this is a breaking change to all implementations, right? # 17:37 rhiaro all implementatins that implemented publicInbox which I don't think is required..? (correct me..) # 17:37 ajordan we're changing semantics but we're also changing the name, and the existing publicInbox is a MAY # 17:38 ben_thatmustbeme cwebber2: this is allowing for if you are posting to all of your (millions of) followers but not posting publicly # 17:38 ben_thatmustbeme cwebber2: the receiving server will see that this is to their followers collection and it knows who the followers are on your server # 17:38 ajordan tantek: I'm not sure about implementations but Mastodon has made it clear that they need this # 17:39 ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i'm a little concerned that we are making changes to a CR that no one has implemententd # 17:40 jaywink thinks we're seeing these things exactly because of implementations # 17:41 eprodrom tantek: I'm back, can chair from here # 17:42 ben_thatmustbeme ... so any that didn't do it before, it doesn't matter, and anyone who did it before will still be compliant (just without that feature) # 17:42 ben_thatmustbeme ... we both shared the same concerns as you (tantek) had, but its really just refining this feature # 17:43 ben_thatmustbeme tantek: i am not questioning the Why at all, i am just trying to make sure we do the right thing for our CR # 17:43 ben_thatmustbeme sandro: your concern is that we are making this change but we are going to have to change it back # 17:44 ben_thatmustbeme ... in order to minimize issues, its better to implement it before it goes in to the CR # 17:44 rhiaro If we made this change now and had to fix it in a month, or if we wait a month and make it then, it doesn't make any difference to CR. # 17:48 ajordan rhiaro: by "make this change" do you mean the WD or the published CR? # 17:48 jaywink but it can still land in the editors draft to not confuse current wip version? # 17:48 eprodrom tantek: thank you # 17:48 Loqi tantek has 66 karma in this channel (370 overall) # 17:48 Loqi [cwebber] #242 sharedInbox / siteInbox type endpoint (publicInbox, but not just for public posts) # 17:48 Loqi [cwebber] #242 sharedInbox / siteInbox type endpoint (publicInbox, but not just for public posts) # 17:49 eprodrom TOPIC: WebSub # 17:49 cwebber2 aaronpk: I think the only topic is the one in the notes # 17:50 cwebber2 aaronpk: the person does not want to submit an implementation report because they're unhappy with EME # 17:50 cwebber2 sandro: I think there's not a lot we can do about it and we should move on # 17:51 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme on the speaker queue # 17:51 eprodrom ack ben_thatmustbeme # 17:52 cwebber2 ben_thatmustbeme: on another point, as in terms of websub implementation reports, an fyi that diaspora did an implementation of websub but might not submit an implementation report because they may drop OStatus # 17:53 cwebber2 sandro: I think it would be nice to have impl reports that speak to just that it's compatible with classic PuSH # 17:53 Loqi sandro has 47 karma in this channel (54 overall) # 17:53 rhiaro Adding for the minutes that sandro said he will report the EME thing to Team and tantek will report to AB # 17:53 cwebber2 eprodrom: do we have ways in impl report template for 3rd party supporters? # 17:53 cwebber2 aaronpk: there's nothing in the template right now but I know there's a line with author / etc # 17:54 cwebber2 ben_thatmustbeme: looking for more info for impl reports # 17:56 cwebber2 tantek: I'm saying validator impl reports linking to jf2.rocks, is that right? # 17:56 cwebber2 ben_thatmustbeme: that's the landing page for now that links them all # 17:56 ajordan are .rocks domains just a thing in the W3C now?? or is it just this WG? # 17:56 tantek s/validator impl reports/validator, sample set, implementation reports # 17:57 cwebber2 tantek: 30 sec update, I'm successfully using JF2 to do social embedding on my site # 17:58 Loqi [tantek] #25 Response Type: consider "reply" for 2nd to last for fallback use-cases # 17:59 Zakim tantek, you need to end that query with '?' # 17:59 Zakim Present: cwebber, jaywink, ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, eprodro, ajordan, tantek # 17:59 Zakim sees on irc: Loqi, eprodrom, Zakim, RRSAgent, tantek, timbl, raucao, xmpp-social, bwn, dwhly, astronouth7303, saranix, JanKusanagi, albino, jaywink, ben_thatmustbeme, csarven, # 17:59 Zakim ... cwebber2, michcioperz, wilkie, ajordan, trackbot, rhiaro, sandro, MMN-o, nightpool, DenSchub, puckipedia, tsyesika, jet, lambadalambda, tcit, aaronpk, bitbear, mattl, sknebel, # 18:03 Loqi [cwebber] #244 Accept / Reject a Follow # 18:03 ajordan ... people want to be able to accept and reject followers # 18:04 ajordan ... we propose that everyone always sends an accept/reject # 18:04 ajordan ... for people that always want to accept, you just automatically send an accept back # 18:04 ajordan ... this makes it mandatory that you always send an accept/reject to a follow request Loqi joined the channel
# 18:09 ajordan ... I didn't realize this was in the spec, this seems kind of reasonable # 18:09 ajordan ... I'd move towards figuring out how to do this in the spec # 18:10 ajordan ... it'd be a normative change but wouldn't break backwards compat # 18:10 jaywink isn't a Follow nothing to do with friend request? it's jsut "I follow that person if they send me something they will" # 18:10 ajordan eprodrom: it lets you have a regular following mechanism like other social networks have # 18:10 ajordan cwebber2: 5 minutes late, I want to get to the one other related thing # 18:10 ajordan ... big debate in e.g. Mastodon/AP as to whether you federate a Block # 18:11 ajordan ... Mastodon *has* to federate a Block because they don't explicitly ??? # 18:11 ajordan ... we had a conversation and realized we were kind of overloading Block # 18:11 ajordan ... there's disallowing side effects, and there's basically a "request to unfollow" # 18:12 ajordan ... I want to get a sense as to what people, especially eprodrom, think about this # 18:12 ajordan ... is this reasonable to put in the spec, should we do this with an Undo, a Reject, etc. # 18:12 ajordan eprodrom: we have an activity type called Block which is specifically to implement social media block # 18:12 ajordan ... it seems to me what would happen in that situation # 18:12 ajordan ... on the sender's server you'd expect to have that kind of mechanism # 18:12 ajordan ... on the receiving server things get trickier, it's advisory # 18:13 ajordan ... if alice and bob are both on example.com and charlie is on foo.example and charlie blocks bob # 18:13 ajordan ... foo.example will still be sending updates to example.com because of alice # 18:13 ajordan ... the expected behavior for example.com is that it not show that info to bob, but if it's hostile it could do that # 18:13 ajordan ... one of the things we discussed on this call is that there are two separate things covered by Block and they're separate # 18:14 ajordan ... some people want to send a Block-type thing across the wire to say "don't send my stuff to this person" # 18:14 ajordan ... some people don't want to send something across the network for safety reasons # 18:14 ajordan ... we separated out an ignore-style block and retroactively undoing a follow # 18:14 ajordan ... we want to separate these cleanly into two different things # 18:15 ajordan ... if you look at the issue summary it'd make it so you never have to federate a Block # 18:15 ajordan ... the only thing you'd end up federating is the other one (the "don't forward stuff to the follower's inbox" type thing) # 18:15 ajordan ... and you could choose whether to do that or not # 18:15 ajordan ... does that make sense that there's two separate actions here? # 18:15 ajordan ... I don't see the point in teasing out two different things when there's already Block # 18:16 ajordan eprodrom: it's a single activity type and you could just do it # 18:16 ajordan ... I don't see what the additional complexity buys you # 18:16 ajordan ... people push the block button and then unclick it # 18:17 ajordan ... it stops the soft-blocked person from following them but still allows them to interact with posts # 18:17 ajordan ... the scenario here is that you don't want them to see the private messages you're sending out to friends and family, but you don't mind if they interact with your posts # 18:17 ajordan eprodrom: currently sends a block and an undo block right? # 18:17 ajordan ... I've been writing social software for 10 years and I don't care about this usecase # 18:18 ajordan cwebber2: the motivator is that currently in our spec for a reason we decided to say don't federate a Block # 18:18 ajordan ... we don't want to put people in danger of knowing that they're blocked by somebody # 18:18 ajordan ... this is a problem because of the way Mastodon does delivery # 18:19 ajordan eprodrom: my opinion is not only should you federate blocks this is not a good idea # 18:21 sandro eprodrom: I think I understand why you're trying to not federate blocks, but I don't find it motivating # 18:22 ajordan ... my opinion is that Mastodon users are the bulk of decentralized social media # 18:23 ajordan cwebber2: I'd like to draft up an actual PR to describe how this is done # 18:23 ajordan ... I got a sense about how you feel about it which was my main goal here # 18:23 ajordan ... I'll just draft up a PR, we'll see how it is after it's drafted # 18:23 ajordan ... I'll also need to draft up a PR given the accept/reject convo we had earlier # 18:24 ajordan sandro: I hope you mean pushing something to the editor's draft with a note so people don't have to dig through GitHub # 18:24 ajordan eprodrom: thanks for taking extra time here, let's plan on talking next week # 18:24 ajordan ... cwebber2 do you feel like we need a bit of extra time next week? # 18:25 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been cwebber, jaywink, ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro, eprodro, ajordan, tantek, sandro, aaronpk # 18:31 ajordan eprodrom: could you make a pump.io meeting a week from this Friday? # 18:32 eprodrom ajordan: yes! # 18:33 ajordan okay I *think* I can do that, I'll email you otherwise # 18:42 ajordan so what I was trying to say on the call (albeit at the wrong time) is that what frustrates me is that we spend a lot of time reviewing stuff that's just on GitHub # 18:45 ajordan like if we could collect issues we want to cover in the wiki and then have people review them beforehand that'd be awesome # 18:45 ajordan because then we could jump straight into "can you clarify what you meant by 'xyz' in this issue" or even "I disagree with such-and-such a proposal" # 18:45 ajordan idk maybe it's just me but I feel like we would save a ton of time # 18:45 ajordan instead of things like "here's the problem, here's the rationale, etc." Loqi joined the channel
# 19:26 cwebber2 ajordan: it would... I guess in reality it turns out to be hard to make that happen, I'm not sure why # 19:26 cwebber2 it probably doesn't help that I know I try to compress a lot of information when I describing an issue instead of giving the most succinct explaination # 19:26 cwebber2 it's not one of my strong suits, I'd like to get better at it. # 19:27 cwebber2 this week in particular was hard because we literally had a 3.5 hour meeting this weekend about it # 19:27 cwebber2 and trying to convey the relevant info, and decide what was even relevant to the group, was hard. # 19:48 cwebber2 I was trying to backfill both the missing socialcg minutes # 19:59 saranix crap. I had a conflicting call so I missed everything. Looks like my position wasn't represented either # 19:59 saranix RE: sharedInbox, there is not consensis, the issues I raised are ignored by the current "consensus" # 20:00 saranix RE: Reject, it can't be made a MUST because of the security implications as discussed # 20:00 saranix it must be a MAY Loqi joined the channel
# 20:11 cwebber2 saranix: that was a Working Group call anyhow, which is limited to WG members # 20:12 saranix yeah, but still not cool that it was said consensus which isn't true # 20:13 cwebber2 Loqi was copying the "consensus" bit from the linked part of the issue, I don't think that word was said on the call itself # 20:13 cwebber2 btw, I've been thinking about decentralized identifiers, I wonder if someone's willing to listen to me ramble for a moment # 20:14 cwebber2 it's again, not something I'm trying to push in our current specs # 20:14 cwebber2 just thinking about how it can be used / the right approach # 20:14 saranix I'll discuss. I don't have any particular objections other than complexity # 20:15 saranix my memory of the details is foggy though # 20:15 cwebber2 ok, brb I'm running to the bathroom, then I'll ramble # 20:24 cwebber2 that's the public key fingerprint of my gpg key, in this instance # 20:27 cwebber2 this is inspired by the distributed VoIP system ring, where your fingerprint *is* your username # 20:27 cwebber2 the object contents *itself*, plus the signature of the object appended # 20:27 cwebber2 now you have an easy way to store objects uniquely in a content addressed storage system, and have them be owned to and definitively signed by an object # 20:28 cwebber2 so, in fact, why not have these objects have revisions? adjust our previous idea, HASH is now a hash of <object-contents>+<prev-hash>+<signature> # 20:28 cwebber2 okay great, now we have revisions, but we don't have something pointing at the object # 20:30 cwebber2 first you make the object that it will point to, the initial object Loqi joined the channel
# 20:36 cwebber2 the only thing it lacks afaict is a built-in privacy thing # 20:36 saranix No need for a 50GB java blob to even get started with a hello world :-P # 20:37 cwebber2 but they aren't implicitly so in the design, that would be another layer # 20:37 cwebber2 and of course a petname/human readable naming system :) # 20:40 cwebber2 even if all jaywink said was "ship it", guessing you aren't being serious ;) # 20:41 Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed # 21:23 ajordan definitely understand it being difficult to summarize :) # 21:24 ajordan I wonder if it would help to have an email go out on Friday or something with a list of issues for people to read # 21:24 cwebber2 before you were here, elf Pavlik was pushing hard on this # 21:24 cwebber2 unfortunately, I think it also speaks to a problem with the group structure # 21:27 cwebber2 we have several overlapping specs in the WG, and different groups of people are paying more attention to the trackers of certain ones # 21:27 cwebber2 which means people end up getting caught up on time for the meeting, at the meeting # 21:27 cwebber2 I mean it's already hard to get people to read things ahead of times, but that makes it extra hard # 21:27 ajordan which is why I suggested email instead of something on the issue tracker # 21:27 ajordan I myself don't make a huge effort to pay attention to the list # 21:29 ajordan maybe we could use GitHub's projects feature for this? # 21:29 cwebber2 I think we just need to make time to make sure normative issues are addressed # 21:29 cwebber2 and on that note, I need to do better to be coming in prepared probalby # 21:31 ajordan you know if we got buy-in from everyone, especially chairs, that we would skip explaining issues, and if you hadn't read the issue you'd have to catch up while other people were discussing, that would help # 21:33 cwebber2 I think the reality is that the SocialWG is JIT compiled :) # 21:33 cwebber2 and that includes supplying a summary before an issue # 21:34 ajordan cwebber2: completely unrelated, thinking about your identity thing # 21:34 ajordan offhand, without knowing a *ton* of details about either system, it kinda sounds to me like you just invented IPFS # 21:36 cwebber2 I think the main difference is that this is namespaced in a way where you can have a mutable pointer # 21:37 ajordan no, they have a DNS-like layer on top of the immutable stuff # 21:37 cwebber2 where "branches" are effectively owned by a single user # 21:40 cwebber2 ajordan: yep, looks similar without the revision history # 21:42 ajordan when you say "git-like chain" you mean the property where each object references the previous one? # 21:42 ajordan not surprising that people come up with it (semi-)independently # 21:43 cwebber2 ajordan: I'm not claiming it's unique in ideas, just that it seems to me that it could be usable for the same kind of thing that DIDs are being worked on for # 21:44 cwebber2 at any rate, having an overlap of ideas here is a good sign IMO :) # 21:44 cwebber2 I'm not trying to be original, just solve problems :) # 21:46 cwebber2 if the solution turns out to be obvious enough to be reinvented, sounds good to me # 21:46 saranix in order to be hipster-compliant it must be embedded inside of IPFS, and issued with Ethereum contracts, and verified with DogeCoin hashes or something timbl joined the channel
# 21:49 cwebber2 I'd claim it's so boringly simple it might not be hipsterish, but maybe every hipster would claim that # 21:50 cwebber2 nobody self-identifies as hipster, and accusing someone of being a hipster is a hipster activity, so this is a 2-level deep hipster topic itself # 21:52 saranix oh I forgot that the whole thing has to be solely publicized on twitter and github. *then* it's hipster compliant. # 21:53 ajordan I wonder if there's something like cuil but for hipsters # 21:53 saranix and even though it's a decentralized protocol, it has to be hosted on a centralized server, with some kind of 5-man business model # 21:55 saranix aren't they the same these days :-P # 21:55 cwebber2 there may be no difference (I think nobody identifies as that either outside of the Klout devs, infamously) # 21:56 ajordan now I'm really mad cause I can't find the original Cuil thread # 21:59 saranix totally forgot I was looking for a clipart. 22nd page of results and still can't find the look I'm going for Loqi, Loqi_, raucao, Loqi__, Loqi___ and aaronpk joined the channel
xmpp-social [ajordan] ???
cwebber2 saranix: http://dpaste.com/1ACY96B
ajordan !tell cwebber2 at ben_thatmustbeme's suggestion I put a list of AP issues we're likely to cover at https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-07-18; hope that's okay (and that you agree with my prioritization). there's also the mediaUpload issue (which is *not* on that list) which I *thought* we decided to punt to today, although I might have been thinking about the likes/shares question instead
Loqi Strugee made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2017-07-18]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=103810&oldid=103779
jaywink Btw, Hubzilla/Red is also having an AP implementation in the works: https://macgirvin.com/channel/mike/?f=&mid=fa0d8d0d529d2be81878d3f3928b049739fd496c59f1091e951bfa8bd0362218@macgirvin.com
tantek For review: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-07-18
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/07/18-social-irc
ben_thatmustbeme present+
rhiaro https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-06-27-minutes minutes are corrected