Lloyd_Fassetteprodrom: maybe we should do a strategic review 9:30 - 10..or once Tantek arrives..strategy for next 6 months. Then 30 minutes for future development of IG.
Lloyd_Fassetteprodrom: where we get into PSHB is IP issues with Google...they were going to put the IP under public license but their isn't documentation that they've done so...conversation seems to get into a grey area around IP.
Lloyd_Fassetteprodrom: It seems like we have the documents with the most momentum have made it. There is some issue if we should keep supporting all 4, or select 1 or 2 or 3. I think it's unlikely
Lloyd_FassettTantek: if you wnat to make non-normative changes that are not At Risk...if there are specific features as the editor, would you want to wait, or go to PR? It's a judgement call. If you get one implementation that's one thing, if you get two.
Lloyd_Fassetteprodrom: Sounds like it's a likely situation for AS@ that we will have a large part of vocab not implemented, then we'd have to have another CR, which we should be prepared for.
Lloyd_Fassetteprodrom: I believe the energy and resources of this group are at best to publish the 6 documents. I don't think we have resources to take on new tasks.
Lloyd_FassettTantek: as background, each of the documents had work in them before coming to the group...as an outside Open Source project or other...if someone has a new idea the chances of success are greater if it's incubated informally before being brought to the group.
Lloyd_FassettCwebber2: I don't think that's possible. Both Jessica and I have had life changing things....can we really go to CR without implentations of Acitivty Pub? I think we need implemtation
Lloyd_FassettTantek: Since we're going forward with no At Risk features in AS2 are we going ahead with it? This is a good signal to implementors, we telling them that they need to implement things they really want as warning and incentive they know they need to ship.
Lloyd_FassettTantek: now every Charter renewal goes to Advisory because they saw groups not making progress...wanted to force WG's to show progress. We are showing progress, but we need to show interest from membership companies. We haven't been successful with that to date.
Lloyd_FassettSandro: AFter we go to CR, that takes 2 weeks, 4 weeks in CR, 2 weeks to go to PR. We need to decide to go to CR 12 weeks before our charter ends.
Lloyd_Fassetteprodrom: My expectation is that there will not be significant social work after CR until implementations come back. It doesn't feel like there's anything in chute for January 1.
Lloyd_FassettTantek: there has been an uptick in Webmention since it went to CR. I imgine the same effect with AS2. Optimistically I hope to see people come out of the wood work. We should look for that and ride that wave. RIght now I agree with Evan, but I hope we're altering it
Lloyd_Fassetteprodrom: We've built up instituional knowledge about the social web landscape. Is there something we can identify as reasonable and useful to recommend.
Lloyd_FassettSandro: 2017 workshop at the earliest May? W3C measures success by how many people show up...one could do a state of the Social Web...I don't know when there will be energy for that, but it's a thing someone could start to figure out.
Lloyd_FassettTantek: do we want to aim for the path to get charter renewal, or plan for letting the group close and start a new group. Something this group has achieved is a culture of moving multiple approaches forward where they a more than civil but synergystic. I think that's a unique thing and I don't want to lose that.
Lloyd_FassettTantek: like the last last Plenary. If we do another one I expect a group. We can tell them our charter expires in 3 months. We can ask for support. If we got enough AC support, that's all we need.
ben_thatmustbemei think the collaboration we are getting between the different communities is actually one of the really great reasons to keep the WG going
Lloyd_Fassetteprodrom: On a practical level on extending a Charting. I think we'll lose Araund and James Snell. They've said that. It would be a different kind of chartering process.
Lloyd_Fassetteprodrom: We've drifted..if we get documents to CR, I'm not sure we have a burning purpose for this group beyond that. If we do have a purpose, we might want to identify that. Webextensions? additional vocabularies?
Lloyd_FassettTantek: If we want to extend we need a new charter with new work items, We need that to be prepared in advance. If it 's not clear by Sept. We can't really justify a renewal, but if there is a list we should go for it. I think there will be a need sooner rather than later for Vouch.
Lloyd_FassettTantek: We'd ask for a 3 months extension, not a Charter renewal. It might go to AC, but it's less contentious. The point is to let the group wrap something up.
Lloyd_FassettTatek: one last thing about the prospect of change...the two days after this meeting is a Decentralized Web Summit, Tim is also attending, in addition to Vint Cerf. I could see some critical mass coming out of that, though it's unpredictable. The probably goes up with the profiles of the poeple attending. I'll be there. Sandro will be there. It's not W3C. It's being hosted by the Internet Archive.
Lloyd_FassettSandro: my point was about industry participation. It used to be Microsoft ruled the world..then we got around the internet...I was expecting people to team up against Facebook....Google seems like the obvious candidate, but they have internal conflicts.
rhiaro... Particularly recent comments about MS to internet to facebook, are we building something that can challenge facebook? THe w3c is largely still being directed by large industry players, but I think the social web is about challenging what industry does and hwo they make their revenue
rhiaro... I haven't thought about the distributed web as strongly as tantek, but there might be ar eally good opportunity to look for something for this group to coalesce around for distributed web standards
rhiaroeprodrom: When we were chartered we had this continuation of the open social concept, a backbone within enterprise, you could buy these social applications from different vendors and they would all work together
rhiaro... I think the cominbination of the fact we haven't had a lot of participation from opensocial implementors so that voice has not been brought out here
rhiaro... This might be a little bit predictiony, but my idea is that social within enterprise has changed from the activity stream model to more along the conversation format that you see in say a slack or a hipchat
rhiaro... All of which is to say that I think the story that we had about developoing business cases fromthe IG at the chartering time has reflected that world
rhiaro... Probably a lot of people in the world they would like to share and have standardised so it can gain adoption. Maybe more outreach could be a useful thing
rhiarotantek: the one new thing is to suggest that for those who think we're going to want to recharter in december that any time between now and december would be a great time to be incubating things that you would expec tto put into the charter
rhiaro... If you look at the charter now, written 2/3 years ago, what actually came of the group was something that was mentioned explicitly in the charter
rhiarosandro: I'd like to understand whether we're trying to appeal to people as individuals with political and moral stances, or more traditional w3c space appeal to business and what makes good business sense
rhiaroeprodrom: We're past time, but I'd like to amend our agenda so we do implementation updates starting at 11 then half hour for SWP then possibly more this afternoon
rhiaro... The only reason slack works is because slack the company built all fo the apps. If it were a standard anyone could build apps on any platfors
rhiarotantek: we have seen with the examples of twitter and facebook there have been tons of buisness that have been built around eithe rone of those, and ther ehas been a slow attrition of tightening apis, cutting off, etc
rhiaroeprodrom: I feel like we've covered the issue of where we stand today, what we're doing over the next 6 months, and what future directions would be
rhiaro... We have some action items to look towards doing a draft charter at the next f2f, that we have some expections of what will go into SWP, as well as some urgency ot move the document swe have along as fast as we possibly can. And implementations
rhiarotantek: If you want something in a charter renewal, an item, scope or deliverable, you need to be incubating it today and be prepared to present it at a breakout session at tpac
tantekalso demo'd 2016.indieweb.org, RSVPs from 24 independent sites, sent via webmention, nearly that many different implementations, though some may have been sent by curl
cwebber2eprodrom: so one of the implementations that hasn't come out of this group from AS2 is the wordpress implementation which came up a few telcons ago
cwebber2.... so I think it will come down to supporting that in validation. To be honest, my json-ld foo is not strong enough to know if our alias is defined
cwebber2eprodrom: there's some great wordpress blogs out there, maybe if we can get some review from some of them, it might be a nice next step to get on w3c blog and etc
cwebber2eprodrom: there are a couple of things from us, at least from a specification standpoint, do we need for someone who has an as1 implementation, what can we do to let them upgrade to as2
cwebber2... since this is an example of someone who's done that who hasn't been in these discussions, would be good to see what "mistakes" he's made, etc
cwebber2sandro: for this use case where it's kind of just doing the same thing as RSS, would it make sense to have consuming libraries that take rss / atom / etc and give you as2 out
cwebber2tantek: I think that's good encouragement from sandro, and figure out what's the gap between you ran webmention.rocks, but haven't filled out implementation report
cwebber2eprodrom: what we decided to do for as2 test suite is two things, one is a validator, which for publishers is the "test" mechanism. for consumers we have a test suite of sample documents, served off of github, or you can download them and read them off the filesystem, and that's the level we went for in terms of as2
cwebber2eprodrom: let me try the consumer side first, since seed of test repo was the document itself, I would say that yes, that's the case, however... not all variations of the different types are fully there
cwebber2eprodrom: for example, let's say adding a photo to a collection. We don't have examples of adding a video to a collection, a blogpost, a collection to a collection, etc
cwebber2eprodrom: if we were going to unit test this to make it bullet proof, we don't quite have that, and we don't have a lot of the sociopathic examples of adding a person to themselves, etc
cwebber2rhiaro: might be that if we produce some normative text to do you must use this spec in these circumstances, must use this in these circumstances
cwebber2rhiaro: the main thing is I need to see if there are major things missing from the sepecs, and where there are missing things in specs I've put a red box
cwebber2... there are tricks to doing it with different feeds, eg a friends feed, but that can get tricky when you say ony send this to Sandro and the public
cwebber2... the algorithm is my server tells your server hey amy wants to subscribe, you say yes from now on I push to you, or your server can say no i don't support that, keep polling
cwebber2eprodrom: the only problem with polling, it's great in a lot of ways in that you can do kind of lighter-weight servers etc, but you can imagine two servers with 1000 servers, and now you have one million possible relationships, and with all that polling you could shut that down with all those polls
aaronpk... if your'e thinking about saying i'm going to add these specific things or change them, but then have remove and refer to it by name, if you think about json-ld then this name might expand
aaronpkeprodrom: let me propose this... if we take the update type to mean patch, make changes to the properties i'm providing and everything else stays the same
aaronpkcwebber2: the place this might break with pump.io implementations, current implementations expect full replacements. with this there is a change of expecations of clients now.
aaronpk... basically the thing you say about refering back and forth between things, i reorganized it in such a way that the parts don't depend on each other
aaronpk... the server to server differentiates (inspired by webmention being a tiny thing) stuff appearing in mhy inbox that i didn't ask for vs subscribing to things
aaronpk... they both happen where one is someone posts something to you becasue you hit subscribe earlier, and the other because someone just wants to post to you
aaronpk... for me it's a big enough thing that it's a barrier to implement it. implementing webmention seems small but implementing subscribe in activitypub seems big
aaronpkeprodrom: with OStatus, there were two different mechanisms for subscriptions vs replies. salmon for replies and PuSH for subscription, it seems like in the indieweb stack that's how it works now too
aaronpk... so there's still a question about whether this should be one specficiation that has clearly separated parts or whether this should be broken into multiple documents
aaronpkcwebber2: what might be a good workflow is to break them into sections in the same spec, and maybe as a second step split them into separate documents
aaronpkeprodrom: unfortunately it's not something explicit within activitystreams, we do have ordered collection but it doesn't specify how items are ordered
aaronpk... i'll be honest, for some of the collections like following/follower it might not be a big deal. but for inbox/outbox i would be surprised to do it any way other than reverse chronological by published
aaronpk... i just contradicted myself. the world of feeds is not reverse chronological, e.g. facebook and twitter are moving towards ordering by relevance
aaronpkcwebber2: imagine you have a client and you logged in yesterday and you have a local cache of the objcets, and you log in again, and you want just the objects that have been added to the collection since this one
aaronpkeprodrom: one of the things that happens with naive paging within collections is you say here are the first 20 elements, and the next request is show me the next 20. if any new items have come into the collection you would skip some
aaronpkcwebber2: i'm going to be focusing the next many months on getting implementations of activitypub. i originally didn't think we were going to fill up this whole time.
cwebber2aaronpk: 24 is something someone has noticed which is that because the expectation was that all values would be arrays, but the spec didn't say that
cwebber2cwebber2: the pump.io philosophy is that you have a seaparate id that doesn't change and a url (which might be the same thing) which might change
cwebber2aaronpk: a while ago I had it use the activitypub type syntax for updates, started working on a draft for that, but the problem I ran into is that there was no way for it to specify partial updates
cwebber2aaronpk: I assume someone wants to add screenshots to my bookmarks, I don't want them to preserve my publish date and all the tags I've added...
cwebber2aaronpk: the way this actually works, my app quill can add publish date and location of where I am, sets the timezone of the publish date properly, so now when I add a photo I can't imagine there's any reason to require that the app adding a photo also know about all the specifics about the rest of this post
cwebber2... but the original issue was to use the ActivityPub syntax for that, or to do what's already there which has been implemented by people not me
cwebber2eprodrom: if I can maybe specifically talk to the activitypub issue, that we thought there would be value in having overlap here, but if there's not value maybe close it saying "it could have been helpful, it turns out to not be helpful"
aaronpk here's a hangouts URL for the people participating remotely: https://hangouts.google.com/call/u6fcfqgoozgrnpb3g4ru3eqc6ye
eprodrom Hello, all
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/06-social-irc
ben_thatmustbeme is listening, has no mic or cam right now
trackbot Sorry, aaronpk, I don't understand 'trackbot, this meeting spans midnight'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
KevinMarks There is a "builders day" tomorrow before the public day weds
Loqi Aaronpk made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-06-06]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=98581&oldid=98572
tantek KevinMarks: so you are advocating for URIs, indirectly, per the "@" expanding to https://twitter.com/
rhiaro KevinMarks_ Can I close https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/issues/22?
cwebber2 eprodrom: what we decided to do for as2 test suite is two things, one is a validator, which for publishers is the "test" mechanism. for consumers we have a test suite of sample documents, served off of github, or you can download them and read them off the filesystem, and that's the level we went for in terms of as2
Zakim tantek, you wanted to make 3 requests for Social Web protocols http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2016-06-06#t1465248057089