Social Web Working Group Teleconference

24 May 2016

Attendees

Present: present, Arnaud, sandro, tantek, ben_thatmustbeme, aaronpk, annbass, rhiaro, cwebber, eprodrom
Regrets
Chair: Arnaud
Scribe: ben_thatmustbeme, rhiaro

Arnaud: there aren't too many listed, but the chairs had a meeting and agreed that we had enough key members there
... we have updated a list of topics, but if there is anything else people wish to add, add proposals and the chairs will try to accomidate
... any immediate comments, questions, etc on the meeting?

aaronpk: nothing new on our end, we are all set. I added a bunch of information to the wiki page, directions, food, etc

Arnaud: if there are no other questions, we can move on.
... there is a question of when the next telcon will be, next weekend is memorial day meeting
... when do we meet next

sandro: I'd like to meet next week so we can hopefully get AS2 to CR

rhiaro: I wanted to ask to meet next week, so i can hopefully get a new WD of SWP

Arnaud: hearing that i am proposing to keep the normal schedule next week. Any problem with that?

<eprodrom> +1

<annbass> +1

<KevinMarks> +1

<rhiaro> +1

tantek: Arnaud, would you consider that if for some reason, those both fall through, we don't bother. So i'd say +1 to telcon if one of those is ready to ask the group to publish

<KevinMarks> deciding when? Monday?

<KevinMarks> Sunday?

Arnaud: so you are specifically interested in not having the call next week?

<rhiaro> I'm definitely going to ask about SWP next week

tantek: no, its a matter of being able to make other plans or not

<rhiaro> Draft will be ready by end of day tomorrow

tantek: if we are going to have these drafts ask to be published, hopefully those drafts will be ready a few days before
... maybe that they have publish ready drafts have them ready by friday?

Arnaud: and then people review them on memorial day weekend?

sandro: you have a better use for a holiday ? :P

tantek: I don't want to do a telcon just to rubber stamp
... its fine to do a telcon to publish, but to agree to publish, people have to have time to review

Arnaud: we will have the telcon ready next week, per the regular schedule, but if the editors expect to be able to publish, they be ready by friday

tantek: and then there is the one after the meeing too

Arnaud: i think we can decide that at the F2F

Webmention CR update

<tantek> https://twitter.com/w3c/status/735108163704348672

<Loqi> @w3c :: Webmention is a W3C Candidate Recommendation (Call for Implementation) https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5439

sandro: Webmention has been published as a CR

<annbass> hubba hubba!

<tantek> and https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5439

multiple: congratulations

<tantek> congrats all!

Arnaud: this happend just yesterday?

<KevinMarks> we did use cases and requirements, I remember

sandro: the transition meeting was fairly uneventful, but for an awkward moment of us not having use-cases and requirements

<rhiaro> sandro: I can put that in SWP too

<rhiaro> or, links to existing articles about the comparisons

sandro: I also got some requests from people asking for notes about how it relates to trackback/pingback

<KevinMarks> SWAT0 has been satisifed with webmention, which is a use case we brought in

Arnaud: for those new to w3c process, we now look for implementation reports, and w3c wide review.. the key is to meet exit criteria

<tantek> FYI re: webmention over trackback/pingback: https://indiewebcamp.com/Webmention-faq#Why_webmention_instead_of_pingback

sandro: now is the time to drum up publicity for people who might be interested in trying it out

Arnaud: we want to advertise it as much as possible and get them to provide implementation reports

tantek: and feedback too

<KevinMarks> see https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Use_Cases and https://aaronparecki.com/notes/2015/07/14/1/swat0

tantek: thats part of the goal of CR, get feedback from others trying to implement it. A good spec, they should be able to implement it without talking to us, and if they can't, we should know that

<KevinMarks> webmention.rocks does that

sandro: here's a dogfoody idea, do we have a webmentionable page about webmention that people can webmention to?

<rhiaro> +1000

<annbass> +1

aaronpk: the validator does that but doesn't hold it permanently

sandro: i think that would be useful

aaronpk: i can make a page for that

tantek: KevinMarks pointed out that we did have the use-case of swat0 and webmention does help implement SWAT0

<KevinMarks> could we add a wm header to the spec? webmention.io, webmention.herokuapp.com or mention-tech would all work

tantek: just like we should have informative text about pingback, etc. We could have something about swat0

<KevinMarks> we have done annotations with wm and fragmentions

<aaronpk> KevinMarks: it's already there :-)

sandro: i also got feedback from shepazu about including a different use-case

Arnaud: if issues come up in CR that cause changes that would effect compliance, we would have to issue a new CR first
... in my experience its quite common, but after that point you already have multiple implementations and probably already meet the exit criteria

tantek: thats my experience too, my understanding is we would still need to meet them minimum CR time (4 weeks?)

<tantek> I also pointed out that the implementation reports can be expected to provide additional use-cases as well (per feedback about including more/different use-cases)

sandro: one other procedural thing that came up, we saw internationalization review, but there are others which we don't have in our charter
... usually you do that before CR

<annbass> important liaison!

tantek: one more thing to request on webmention, to exit CR, we want a complete test suite, we entered CR with a partial test suite, and thats a critical piece to complete
... i wanted to give aaronpk a chance to respond before we move on

aaronpk: the implementation report lists all the things to test, and i plan to add them to webmention.rocks, but there are a few things that would have to be done manually by people.

tantek: do you have a rough idea of when it would be ready?

aaronpk: no, i can't say anything to that right now

<aaronpk> http://webmention.net/implementation-reports/#receiving

aaronpk: my hope with the stuff that i wrote up, is to help you know what it is you need to look for in receiving, if you go through that, you have to self review.
... some of those i will be able to write tests for, some I won't

tantek: as long as we can document what features we have claimed implementations for but don't necessarily have tests for
... if we have features that we cannot have tests for, we should be clear about what that list is
... applies to all of our specs obviously

update on AS2.0

Arnaud: Evan, we were expecting a WD, please tell us whats up?

eprodrom: i just shared links for the editor's draft, but the publish of the WD is taking some time to get going, it should be up in the next 24h, if thats the case, i'll update the group via email. We don't have a WD, we probably can't discuss taking it to CR

Arnaud: to clarify, is the editor's draft ready for publication? is it just a matter of publishing to the TR space?

<eprodrom> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams-core/index.html

<eprodrom> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams-vocabulary/index.html

eprodrom: yes, everyone can view it in the editor's draft now. there will be minor errors or things i have to clean up, but the content will be what will go up on WD

Arnaud: the expecation is that will happen before friday, and hopefully next week we can have a vote on requesting to take it to CR
... any question or comments?

request for review of JF2

<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro

<tantek> URL?

<KevinMarks> ben: I finally have time to do updates on jf2 and i would like to share them wiht the group

ben_thatmustbeme: Can people look over jf2 and give me some feedback; I made some updates

<Arnaud> http://dissolve.github.io/jf2/

<KevinMarks> ben: I want to get feedback from the group

<tantek> summary of changes since we last talked about it?

Arnaud: all the w3c drafts should be in the w3c space?

sandro: no, james resisted that with as2

Arnaud: as far as I know w3c is deploying a bunch of tools to archive, and none of this happen sif it's not in w3c space

sandro: this is true, it's not clear that any of these tools are useful yet, trying to figure out how to deploy the archiving thing

ben_thatmustbeme: none are, are they?

Arnaud: that doesn't mean it's okay

tantek: last time we talked about this we made a deliberate decision to have editors keep the specs in their repos, in SF

sandro: we might want to reconsider if there's a problem, I'll try to find out

Arnaud: thanks

ben_thatmustbeme: I don't think many people have read it yet, it's my first draft, so before I ask I'd like input

tantek: when do you think you'll ask for that

ben_thatmustbeme: barring any issues, it's been very useful for us (aaronpk and I) already, it simplifies things for working with individual objects coming out of microformats
... could ask any time, just want wg review first

tantek: next week, face to face?

ben_thatmustbeme: next week, sure

<scribe> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme

social web protocols

rhiaro: i just updated the mentioning section, i'm going to continue to update the other sections. It was more bullet points before, but now its more prose
... I'm hoping to have it up in a couple days and certainly by friday

<rhiaro> http://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/

rhiaro: i also added text on how it relates to other specs

Arnaud: any other questions?

<cwebber2> yes

tracking of other document status

Arnaud: any other updates anyone wants to give?

<cwebber2> http://w3c-social.github.io/activitypub/

cwebber2: I guess its a big one , but we discussed releasing a new WD of activitypub. I incorporated a few updates, but I don't think anybody raised any other issues to it

<tantek> awesome!

tantek: ben roberts has been helping me get a github version of the post type discovery up and hopefully i'll have it ready by the F2F

cwebber2: i just wanted to make sure that no one raising any issues on the call is it OK for me to publish an updated WD

<aaronpk> http://w3c-social.github.io/activitypub/#changes-from-28-january-2016-wd-to-this-version

cwebber2: I guess what i'm asking for is an explicity vote

<cwebber2> http://w3c-social.github.io/activitypub/#change-log

tantek: is there a list of changes?

cwebber2: pasted in chat

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish the latest ActivityPub editor's draft

<tantek> +1

<sandro> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<annbass> +1

<KevinMarks> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> +1

Arnaud: anyone else?

RESOLUTION: Publish the latest ActivityPub editor's draft

<tantek> minor editorial nit: s/ActivityStreams Working Group/Social Web Working Group

Arnaud: any other good news?

tantek: now that you have a WD ready to publish, hows the implementation going?

cwebber2: after the F2F i plan on doing a complete and independant implementation and that will be my complete focus between this and the next F2F

Arnaud: anyone else?
... Any other business people would like to bring up?

<cwebber2> horray

Arnaud: thank you all

<tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++ thanks for scribing!

<cwebber2> later, *

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 145 karma

Arnaud: we'll have a meeting next week,

<annbass> thanks Arnaud and Ben / Amy

Arnaud: see you next week

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Publish the latest ActivityPub editor's draft

[End of minutes]

Socialwg/2016-05-24-minutes

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

24 May 2016

Attendees

Contents

approval of last weeks minutes

update on F2F

Webmention CR update

update on AS2.0

request for review of JF2

social web protocols

tracking of other document status

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions