View source for SocialCG/2019-04-10/minutes

← SocialCG/2019-04-10/minutes
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, 106, 100-chairs, 93058-chairs, 35125-chairs.
You can view and copy the source of this page.
<pre>
<eprodrom> START MINUTES HERE
<eprodrom> present+
<cwebber2> present+
<melody> present+
<eprodrom> cwebber2: do we need a scribe
<eprodrom> eprodrom: yes and it is me
<eprodrom> TOPIC: Evergreen recommendations
<eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Evergreen_Standards
<cwebber2> eprodrom: I'm doing AC meeting stuff
<cwebber2> eprodrom: interesting stuff happening there
<cwebber2> eprodrom: there's a new recommendation track which would be "Evergreen Standards"
<cwebber2> eprodrom: which would be edited in place over time, aka a living document or living standard
<cwebber2> eprodrom: unlike the previous structure where you work all your way up, do PR, CR, etc, it will be continuously evolving
<cwebber2> eprodrom: there's anticipating there will be kind of a crossover
<cwebber2> eprodrom: some recs being on old rec track that might want to switch over to evergreen standards
<cwebber2> eprodrom: there might be others that might make more sense to continue on REC track
<cwebber2> eprodrom: so they see the idea of standards switching between tracks
<cwebber2> eprodrom: that may sound crazy, but in our own situation we did a lot of work to get to our own stable version, and there's a lot of stuff in implementations around questions, comments, small non-breaking changes, etc
<cwebber2> eprodrom: maybe in two to three years as we're not making many more changes it's time for ActivityPub 1.1 and we freeze it, it goes back in the old REC format
<cwebber2> eprodrom: I think that's very interesting for our document formats
<cwebber2> eprodrom: we've been trying to do something where the version on w3c.org might be different than our GH thing
<cwebber2> eprodrom: so I wanted to bring the idea for discussion
<eprodrom> scribenick: eprodrom
<eprodrom> cwebber2: chance to bridge the gap between spec and reality
<eprodrom> cwebber2: why is energy in CG not reflecting energy in fediverse
<eprodrom> cwebber2: could help bring back energy
<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2
<cwebber2> eprodrom: there's a temptation when you write standards docs is to think that's how you solve it, that you solve it by writing more standards, but I think there's only so much you can do to in terms of editing standards
<cwebber2> eprodrom: but I think we've had a problem where people say the spec says do it this way, but this other way is easier to do so that's what we're doing
<cwebber2> eprodrom: and I think we've been like *shrug*
<cwebber2> eprodrom: so in that sense I think we can better serve those people who are using these specs for reference
<cwebber2> eprodrom: I think that if someone says "I'd like to make this change" and we say "sorry we're closed", that's not very helpful... so it may be helpful to have a structure where things are open for conversation
<cwebber2> cwebber2: is this at the point where it's still in discussion?
<cwebber2> eprodrom: yes I think so, and I'm not 100% sure I understand how it works
<cwebber2> eprodrom: so it's definitely something where we need to look at it, then follow up and say "hey, we think these documents would be good candidates"
<cwebber2> eprodrom: one I def think would def be a good candidate is AS2 vocab
<cwebber2> eprodrom: giving more definition, showing what they do, etc etc
<cwebber2> eprodrom: those are all good things to do and could be really helpful
<cwebber2> eprodrom: AS2 core doesn't seem as volatile
<cwebber2> eprodrom: so maybe that one doesn't make as much sense
<cwebber2> eprodrom: but they talk specifically about vocabularies and registries
<cwebber2> eprodrom: I think ActivityPub may also be a good one
<cwebber2> cwebber2: what are next steps?
<cwebber2> eprodrom: maybe read through the document
<eprodrom> all for me
<eprodrom> scribenick: eprodrom
<cwebber2> TOPIC: AP issues
<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues
<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/338
<cwebber2> cwebber2: Previously people were hacking {Block} and then {Undo {Block}} to do this
<eprodrom> {Undo {Accept}}, then {Reject}
<cwebber2> cwebber2: recommendation then became sending {Reject {Follow}} at any future time
<cwebber2> eprodrom: I feel like maybe the relationship is between three states, you request and it's undetermined, you accept, and then if you undo it set it back to undetermined, then you reject
<cwebber2> eprodrom: it seems like what you've suggested is the cleanest state machine
<cwebber2> sorry, that was me talking to eprodrom 
<cwebber2> eprodrom: yes, it's a clean state machine
<cwebber2> melody: I think it might not matter either way
<cwebber2> melody: I think there's not a distinction, because from Bob's perspective of being removed or undo'ed it's the same situation of not getting updates
<cwebber2> melody: if I later sent a reject as well, you may be like I already unsubscribed from bob
<cwebber2> melody: the one step unsubscribe is the same either way
<cwebber2> cwebber2: I think we should probably accept default behavior?
<cwebber2> eprodrom: I think it makes sense to accept the way mastodon is doing it
* eprodrom has quit ("Page closed")
<cwebber2> MEETING ENDS
</pre>
Return to SocialCG/2019-04-10/minutes.
Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2019-04-10/minutes"