Social Web Working Group Teleconference

10 May 2016

Attendees

Present: eprodrom, bengo, aaronpk, ben_thatmustbeme, annbass, Arnaud, sandro, tsyesika, tantek, shevski, KevinMarks
Regrets Chair: eprodrom
Scribe: Ben Roberts

<Loqi> shevski: tantek left you a message on 5/9 at 6:00pm: short answer, in order to break backcompat. AS2 is not expected to be processed "as is" by AS1 processors. I believe AS2 needed to break backcompat in order to actually make necessary fixes. http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2016-05-09/line/1462842008628

eprodrom: looking at discussion items i think we can do them in order here

updated F2F dates

aaronpk: Very quick update, I got in touch with the host late last week, and its no problem to move the date. I have updated the wiki to say monday and tuesday not tuesday and wednesday
... so that is all set now

<sandro> +1 aaronpk ! thanks!

eprodrom: great
... sandro that takes are of the conflict?

sandro: yes, thank you very much

eprodrom: the time to book your flights is now

taking webmention to CR

eprodrom: i think that by the end of this discussion we will put a proposal forward to take it to CR, there may be other proposals first

<tantek> I didn't see any alternatives either in IRC or email since last week so I'm confused about "other proposals first"

<Loqi> Abasset made 2 edits to Socialwg/2016-05-10 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=98203&oldid=98201

eprodrom: aaronpk asked last week what we would need to take webmention to CR
... i think that we have all or almost all the requirements we expect, is that correct aaron?

aaronpk: yes, i completed moving the implementations to github and it editors draft has it

sandro: have the exit criteria been moved out of the draft too?
... the idea is that when we go to later status we don't want to change the body

tantek: in my experience, as long as its non-normative changes its okay

eprodrom: with that possible astrisk, webmention is technically ready to go to CR
... last week i wanted to make sure that as we took it to CR, we make sure that strategically that the work we are doing as a whole is what we want
... i had a little bit of a concern mapping webmention to our charter
... how does it map, and what about the other items with the charter
... i think last week we figured out that we would be publishing social web protocols as a note that would be our description
... our goal is to move all of our 4 main documents to seperately
... if we have not formalized that as a resolution, i think we should

sandro: i think we can keep social web protocols as WD for now and publish as a note before the group closes

tantek: i agree with sandro

eprodrom: would it be useful to have a vote on this strategy? or have we already done so peice by peice

tantek: i thought we resolved on that at F2F in cambridge. Is there anyone else that is surprised by that or doesn't remember that?

sandro: i think it would be to have some approved text to explain it to the world

tantek: i am fine leaving amy to work on that for now

sandro: and we need to review it before it gets published

eprodrom: the second point there is, does social web protocols provide that quick description of our strategy. I think it does

<KevinMarks> (forgot to say that earlier)

tantek: amy has does a great job of comparing differences, etc. Is rhiaro on the line? I think there could be further documentation. If there is anything specific someone wants to see added they should open an issue there. I don't think there is going to be anything contraversial as far as adding MORE description

<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: Activity Streams 2, Webmention, ActivityPub and Micropub are recommendation-track documents. We intend to take all four to candidate recommendations as they become ready.

annbass: i think what amy has written so far is great, but what will be the follow on work to this? What next? it seems that the procols note could also say "here's whats been done" and 'heres what we are working on next"

<tantek> +1

<rhiaro> I have a bunch of work to do on SWP but way more detail and updates there is on the cards for sure

tantek: i think thats totally reasonable to add ot the document
... thats not blocking, anyone can open an issue and ask for amy to add it

<rhiaro> yep, that's fine

annbass: i think i'm talking of something larger than that. I'm trying to get at "what comes next after these 4 documents"
... its a question of what happens with continuation of the working group

sandro: i think this is a great topic for the F2F

<annbass> good idea (re F2F)

tantek: i think its a question of scope

<bengo> yes

eprodrom: i posted a proposal, does that meet everyone's understanding of what we are doing here?

<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<bengo> +1

<tsyesika> +1

<annbass> +1

tantek: i think thats what we have been doing all along, so i want to know why you think that is needed

<rhiaro> annbass: if it seems appropriate, we could have a 'future work' addendum or appendix in SWP, following discussion at the f2f

tantek: unless otherwise stated all documents are rec-track bound unless we state it to not be

<annbass> sounds good rhiaro

tantek: i don't want it to seem like we are confused on that

<sandro> +1

tantek: if we are working on something, its assumed that it is rec-track bound

eprodrom: Solid for example, is something that is mentioned, but we don't have anyone really working on it, so unless someone picks it up and starts running with it, its not going to get done

<annbass> my main point, rhiaro, is that one might think that the WG thinks the current 4 pieces of work are all that needs to be done

<rhiaro> annbass: right, I agree with that concern :)

tantek: i think thats moved mostly outside of the working group. The critical mass seems to have moved out of the WG, which is fine. There are other examples of productive work being done in sort of an external incubation. We could certainly see something end up back here

<tantek> no need to exclude SOLID

eprodrom: i think what you are saying is that this proposal is not necessary

tantek: i would rather not implicitly or explcitly exclude something like solid, unless there is a good reason for excluding it

<annbass> the proposal just states 4 items

<sandro> sandro: I didn't take the proposal as necessary complete.

tantek: the proposal did not mention various other documents, and there shouldn't be a need for that
... i think we resolved something stronger at the last F2F

<sandro> sandro: it in no way implies or states that anything else is ruled out.

tantek: I would rather stick with that stronger version where we empower editors to move forward

sandro: this all seems like an aside, can we go back to webmention?

<annbass> +1

eprodrom: there is a proposal on the table

<annbass> (that was my vote on Evan's proposal)

RESOLUTION: Activity Streams 2, Webmention, ActivityPub and Micropub are recommendation-track documents. We intend these four documents at a minimum to candidate recommendations as they become ready.

i'm going to mark it as resolved, i appreciate the consideration

<sandro> (My vote is contingent on it being inclusive, and that's been stated in the meting)

<tantek> sandro, mine too

eprodrom: are we ready for a proposal for a proposal to take webmention to CR?

<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: Publish Webmention as a candidate recommendation

aaronpk: sounds good to me

<KevinMarks> a proposal for a proposal?

sandro: technically we are proposing to ASK for it go to CR

<tantek> +1

sandro: its clear enough

<sandro> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<KevinMarks> +1

<tsyesika> +1

<bengo> +1

eprodrom: if nothing else to say, time to vote

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<annbass> +1

<wilkie> +1

<shevski> +1

eprodrom: anyone else?

RESOLUTION: Publish Webmention as a candidate recommendation

<annbass> whooeee!!!

sandro: wohooo

tantek: now we have to action sandro to do some additional work

<sandro> ACTION: sandro move webmention through the process to CR publication [recorded in [[1]|http://www.w3.org/2016/05/10-social-minutes.html#action01]]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Move webmention through the process to cr publication [on Sandro Hawke - due 2016-05-17].

eprodrom: do we have anything else to discuss here?

tantek: do we want to resolve to publish the current editors draft first and assume that is the version we are taking to CR

<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: Publish Webmention editor's draft as a working draft

<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: Publish Webmention editor's draft as a working draft that we believe is CR-ready

<sandro> +1

<tantek> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<eprodrom> +1

+1

<annbass> +1

<wilkie> +1

<bengo> +1

tantek: what we are basically saying from the groups perspective, this is the version that is ready for CR, but it can now work its way through W3C

sandro: one way is to write a transition request, and there are a bunch of questions to answer about it

tantek: is that something that has to be done privately?

RESOLUTION: Publish Webmention editor's draft as a working draft that we believe is CR-ready

sandro: i'm used to it being done on a wiki

eprodrom: do we have anything ELSE to do on taking webmention to CR

<tantek> I think that's all the WG can do. Now it's up to the chairs, sandro, to move it through W3C process.

eprodrom: i think that for next weeks call we should probably give an update on where we are but otherwise its moving along nicely

AS2 status

eprodrom: a quick update, we are at inbox 0 on issues for AS2. I did a new editors draft this morning that closes all the outstanding issues. That was one of our big items for taking AS2 to CR
... what i'd like next is are there any questions about as2, issues on it, etc

<KevinMarks> I sent one last week in chat, not GH

tantek: were there any issues that you felt you had to make a decision on despite objections?

eprodrom: probably the one on the relationship schema, i think that we came to a solution that everyone was happy with, but the differences were minimal and we came up wiht reasonable compromises there

aaronpk: i was just looking throught them and i don't see any labels on them and i thought we were going to do that for them all

eprodrom: i will go back through them and do that
... any other questions?

<tantek> changes section?

eprodrom: in that case, i'd like to put it for review for the next week and plan to take it to CR next week
... does that sound reasonable?

tantek: i think the better way to say that, is there any issues people have with taking it to CR, bring them up next week
... have you taken a look at noting what to put as at-risk or not, also have you gone through a bunch of boxes to tick on implementation reports, test suite, etc

eprodrom: i think the main one there is the implementation report. we have a validator, and a test suite
... are we okay going to a working draft

<tantek> +1 to a Changes section

aaronpk: i found it very helpful for myself and others to have a "changes between versions" is there anything like that for AS2

eprodrom: we have not had that up until now, I can do that for recenty edits, and i can probably go back through git-log review, is that worth it?

aaronpk: i think it is. It's been 5 months since the last WD with potentially 5 months of people looking at the draft and implementing based off of it

tantek: a summary would be good, it doesn't need to be a diff by diff change

<KevinMarks> writing release notes is a good idea

tantek: i think a high-level change log since the last WD would be good

sandro: on a related note, do we have differences from AS1
... WHY we changed from AS1, not just how

<eprodrom> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams-core/index.html#activitystreams-1.0a

shevski: i was wondering if there is any documentation of why things changed, whats the major benefit of changing, what does the future look like for AS2 and not worry that there is going to be some other version.

eprodrom: there is a big section that talks about the differences, and it does give a reason for each difference, so there is that, the question is 'whats the benefit' I'm not sure thats reasonable to put into a specification itself
... i'm not sure that kind of advocacy should be part of a document

<bengo> i agree

eprodrom: i'm okay with drafting that, but i'm not sure this document makes sense

<KevinMarks> not so much advocacy as reasoning

sandro: i think its fine being in the spec, from the view that its the motifvation for the spec

tantek: html5 over html4, css, etc have examples of that
... it is relevent as we move to CR and its a call for implementations

<shevski> yep

tantek: its in our best interest to provide that

<shevski> (and how have we made AS2 future proof)

tantek: part of the challenge here is that we don't have that many implementers of AS2 here so we recognize that a lot of our implementations are going to come from outside of the group and i see that as pretty important to convice others to upgrade

eprodrom: what are we looking for, a paragraph on why its better to always update to later specs, or something specific about as2

sandro: what problems were people having with as1 that made them want to change the spec, like "i wanted json instead of xml"

tantek: i agree with sandro, what were the motivations in changing it

<tantek> aside: AS1 had a JSON version as well (in addtion to AS1/Atom)

annbass: i am hearing two conversations here, 1) why are there changes, and 2) why use activity streams at all

sandro: no, i wasn't saying that

<annbass> sandro wasn't saying (2) .. the AS2 intro already covers that

tantek: as2 is not backwards compat with AS1, what are the main reasons we had to break backcompat
... empathizing with the implementers, "yes, it breaks backcompat, but we find that it will improve ..."

<tantek> shevski: please step in and correct me if I'm mistaken about empathizing with AS1 implementers

eprodrom: here's what i would like to do, we have 2 sections on relationship with AS1.0 , one in the introduction, one is much more detailed
... i think in that introduction another paragraph or two that describes what the differences are and why. what the advantages are

<shevski> yep benefits!

aaronpk: i think that would be helpful, i think that also a short summary of the issues of as1 that prompted as2, that would be what a developer would be interested in. what was wrong with AS1 that it needed to change

<bengo> For me the most important things about as1 -> as2 is the json extensibility story and w3c stewardship.

<annbass> I'm sympathetic to Evan's problem .. it's very hard to resurrect this info after the fact, if one wasn't the author

eprodrom: this is somewhat archeology for me, i am going to have to ask james for some, research others. Its going to be a lot of digging
... it feels like a lot of busywork

aaronpk: i think what shevski is getting at is a much higher level of a 'why at a high level did we break back-compat'

<tantek> what motivated the decision to *start* breaking backcompat? perhaps a while ago, but developers deserve an answer to that question

eprodrom: so something like 'we are compatible with json-ld, we are supporting different languages, that type of thing

shevski: the other thing for me, is what new features, and how much thought of the future of as2 and how it can be extended without breatking compatibility in the future

eprodrom: so something about the future also?

<ben_thatmustbeme> i was going to bring up extensability section

eprodrom: does our section on extensability cover that? I'm guessing it doesn't

shevski: i'm interested in building trust about switching to it. I don't think it has to be line by line or anything

<tantek> github issue to track this - yes

<tantek> thanks eprodrom

eprodrom: would you mind adding an issue on github and i'll see if i can draft something up

<eprodrom> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues

eprodrom: some sample text would be great as to what you are looking for

<shevski> okay

<tantek> think we could still do a WD

eprodrom: it sounds like we are not ready for a WD, so i'm not going to ask for that

<tantek> if we have a changes section

<annbass> thanks Evan and Ben!

<tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++ thanks for minuting

if thats it, then thats it, thanks everybody

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 143 karma

<wilkie> ben_thatmustbeme++

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 144 karma

<shevski> thanks all!

<tantek> shevski, I think you've been actioned to open a new issue on https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues with specific "why" questions

<eprodrom> ben_thatmustbeme: I'll do it

<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: sandro move webmention through the process to CR publication [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/10-social-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

accept minutes for May 3, 2016
Activity Streams 2, Webmention, ActivityPub and Micropub are recommendation-track documents. We intend these four documents at a minimum to candidate recommendations as they become ready.
Publish Webmention as a candidate recommendation
Publish Webmention editor's draft as a working draft that we believe is CR-ready

Socialwg/2016-05-10-minutes

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

10 May 2016

Attendees

Contents

review minutes from last week

updated F2F dates

taking webmention to CR

AS2 status

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions