Social Web Working Group Teleconference

18 Oct 2016

Attendees

Present: eprodrom, aaronpk, rhiaro, csarven, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, julien, +, bengo, tantek, sandro, !, Benjamin_Young
Regrets Chair: tantek
Scribe: wilkie

tantek: please add yourself to the list of participants
... this will be the last face to face of the year and possibly the last for the group
... there is only me and ben and aaron right now
... I re-ordered one item on the list. these are things that were left-over from last week.
... I moved the pub-sub fpwd status to the top

sandro: so, if you haven't refreshed, I requests LDN to be moved up

tantek: ah, I see

sandro: because rhiaro is in japan

PubSub FPWD

tantek: alright, rhiaro, would you let us know what is going on with the pubsub fpwd

rhiaro: of the last things is to send an email to the systems team to publish it and then it will be done

tantek: great news

rhiaro: pushing that out now

<julien> Thanks Amy for the precious help!

tantek: well that's a pretty big set of hurdles to get pubsub through in terms of process related and naming is probably the most challenging thing to get through

<rhiaro> and pubrules of course

<ben_thatmustbeme> julien++

<Loqi> julien has 2 karma (1 in this channel)

<eprodrom> julien++

<Loqi> julien has 3 karma (2 in this channel)

tantek: thank you julien for your time and patience and keeping pubsub alive all these years and I appreciate all the effort you've put in

<julien> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 242 karma (131 in this channel)

<wilkie> julien++

<Loqi> slow down!

tantek: any questions about pubsub? any comments or issues?

LDN Working Draft to CR

tantek: so we will move on to LDN and moving that from WD to CR

<rhiaro> https://github.com/w3c/ldn/issues/52

rhiaro: we have one new issue since last week. this came from someone coming from i18n although not necessarily from that i18n group about the word 'inbox' and say you were an implementation of LDN related to emails and if you got a notification or error and used 'inbox' the meaning would be confusing.
... the thread is long and has our argument and there isn't quite a good word to use

tantek: let's go to the queue as this is probably worth discussing
... the only thing I'll raise as a related issue is there was a rather long thread about a user story about inbox that we changed but that wasn't a specification where there may be reasoning to draw from
... I can't remember the issue number

<ben_thatmustbeme> we had discussion going back a year at least on "inbox" being a poor term. I remember discussing this at F2F at MIT i think last year or two years ago

<eprodrom> Twitter calls it a home timeline https://dev.twitter.com/rest/reference/get/statuses/home_timeline

rhiaro: the user story was supposed to be a general description of what is happening where the terms weren't necessarily appropriate

tantek: while I look for that issue I'll ack eprodrom

eprodrom: on this topic, there don't seem to be great alternatives to 'inbox'. twitter calls it a 'home timeline' and on facebook calls it a 'feed' and other systems that call it an 'inbox'
... I understand there are tricky bits to it but it seems not worse than other names.
... what I'm say is that there aren't great alternatives.

rhiaro: right, that's what I thought. as 'inbox' is confusing for the context of emails, but other alternatives as 'feed' are equally confusing.

eprodrom: the tricky part is if this is Amy's 'feed' the difference between what things Amy has published vs. what other's have published and that can be confusing to everybody

tantek: go ahead ben

ben_thatmustbeme: if this is specific to LDN can we name it something related to LDN? like "notifications-inbox" or something to make it specific to that stack.

rhiaro: we are aligning with activitypub to align things with pump.io

<cwebber2> activitypub refers to it as well

<cwebber2> and also mentions "outbox"

<cwebber2> rhiaro beat me to it ;)

ben_thatmustbeme: but this takes the place of that section in activitypub

rhiaro: but activitypub refers to inbox as well and has 'outbox'. cwebber2 also mentions that. I don't think it is worth that effort to change it.
... and other people from the i18n group also replied and don't think this is an issue
... it came up on their call in the last 5 minutes

<cwebber2> I also am queued

<tantek> I can't seem to find the giant github thread re: inbox in user-story

<cwebber2> but

sandro: rhiaro, do you want a resolution on this issue from the group?

rhiaro: yeah.

cwebber2: I want to weigh in and say we are in a space where it is hard to overload terms
... for instance, "object" is a very overloaded term we use in this space. and "actor" and you can say it is already defined in "actor model" and such.

<rhiaro> PROPOSAL: Close LDN issue 52 without change as there isn't a better term that makes it worth changing at this point

<aaronpk> that's what flickr did with their early oauth prototype... they had "frobs" which were "flickr objects"

cwebber2: avoiding this seems very difficult and our goal should be to define exactly what these terms mean and that's what these specifications do.

<ben_thatmustbeme> sandro++ lol

<Loqi> sandro has 36 karma (31 in this channel)

<bengo> +1

<sandro> +1

<rhiaro> +1

tantek: I'm seeing some censensus within the group and see nobody rejecting and ben_thatmustbeme raised a question and seems to be answered

<cwebber2> +1

<dmitriz> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +0

<eprodrom> +1

<csarven> +1

tantek: does anybody object? well, if you do object, put a minus 1, and for this a plus 1 and if you don't care a 0

<aaronpk> +0

<wilkie> +1

tantek: not seeing objections, seeing all positives, so let's resolve this

<ben_thatmustbeme> we also discussed it at an F2F but it was during lunch

tantek: I did find the minutes of when we discussed the naming of inbox and it was a year ago

<ben_thatmustbeme> and a heated lunch discussion as i remember

<ben_thatmustbeme> :P

tantek: not that it matters. there's no need to make changes here, there's just more background.

RESOLUTION: Close LDN issue 52 without change as there isn't a better term that makes it worth changing at this point

tantek: alright, rhiaro, let's resolve that

rhiaro: on that note, I don't think we have any outstanding issues.
... we have a security issue but I think that's wrapped up.
... it is worth mentioning that there are 9 implementations and input on github from 21 people not in the group
... and a bunch of discussion

<rhiaro> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/LDN_CR_Transition_Request#Implementations

rhiaro: and csarven and I have something we are working on presenting and getting email feedback from that
... on that note, I'd like to propose to take LDN to CR at the next available opportunity

tantek: seems like we got the issues resolved and that is a great number of implementations to go to CR with so thank you for getting that done
... as discussed at the face-to-face you've taken care of the wide review
... as far as conformance classes and criteria you've done that. do you have a test suite?

rhiaro: we have a lot of that but the user facing since has some work, but the bulk of it, yes

<csarven> https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/tests/

tantek: do you have a page with the status of that?

rhiaro: it is just an empty page at the moment

sandro: I don't see it in the draft

rhiaro: we have to add it to the draft

tantek: another thing you can add is a placeholder for implementation reports

sandro: if they were both on github I could star them and be notified of changes. although if I had an LDN client I guess I would be! but I don't have a client

rhiaro: we could fix that
... yeah, we'll get that all linked before the CR

tantek: those are the only things I'm seeing that are missing: the links to where the test suite will be and a rough statement "the test suite is coming" and the implementation reports and where they will be

rhiaro: yeah

tantek: that's all that is missing and those are editorial changes we could say would take you only a day or two

rhiaro: yeah

tantek: anything else?
... sandro and I are just looking at things we will be asked at the transition call
... ok, let's do it. make a proposal to take LDN to CR

<rhiaro> PROPOSAL: Take LDN to CR

<sandro> +1

<wilkie> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

<csarven> +1

<dmitriz> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<tantek> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<bengo> +1

RESOLUTION: Take LDN TO CR

eprodrom: I have a question that may come up in the CR meeting... do we have something in there that links to social web protocols / other specs?

<eprodrom> csarven++

<Loqi> csarven has -31 karma (7 in this channel)

<rhiaro> https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/#subscribing-to-notifications

<eprodrom> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 243 karma (132 in this channel)

<eprodrom> Great job!

<csarven> Thank you all!

<cwebber2> \o/

tantek: thank you csarven and rhiaro for your hard work. I know you wanted to take it to CR at the face-to-face and now what you are taking to CR is stronger.

<wilkie> csarven++

<Loqi> csarven has -30 karma (8 in this channel)

<csarven> w00t w00t

tantek: that takes us to eprodrom and getting back to your issue or question about social web procotols about the relation to LDN and pubsub?

<tantek> Next topic: relation between LDN and PubSub - is it documented in SWP?

eprodrom: yeah, to answer questions about when we have more than one protocol in the use case area. if they are taken care of in social web protocols is that fine?

<rhiaro> https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/#subscribing-to-notifications

rhiaro: I still have to get social web protocols caught up with pub sub.
... and adding LDN and subscribing to notifications. LDN only deals with delivery and not subscribing and we talked about PuSH as a method of subscribing and that helps us a bit.
... there will be certainly a blow-by-blow alignment in social web protocols but not necessarily LDN

eprodrom: thanks

tantek: I think we could have a section in Social web protocols that mention this that would be good as something we could link to to help us in that transition call if we should need it

rhiaro: yeah

tantek: I'll let you track that issue yourself

<rhiaro> It will be in https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/#subscribing

<Loqi> [Amy Guy] Social Web Protocols

tantek: I think we are now done with LDN, yes? any other questions?
... nope. thank you rhiaro

<rhiaro> I'd be delighted

tantek: sandro, since rhiaro is the author do you want to take the staff role?

sandro: I think rhiaro can do that too

tantek: alright, rhiaro, you have a lot on your plate

sandro: rhiaro, I can help if you need

tantek: if we can group with another CR, great, if not, we might want to do it sooner than later since the time for the group is running out.

Webmention CR->PR status

tantek: that takes us to webmention CR to PR status
... aaronpk, please go ahead

aaronpk: not much new. I did look in to the two features in the list that only have 1 implementation
... I looked around at implementations that didn't submit a report and found 1 that did add this feature
... which is good but I asked them to submit a report but don't know how long it will take for them to do that
... don't know if we can count that implementation without a report
... the other feature, I don't know of any person that is doing that. not sure what to do there.
... it doesn't affect interoperability, so maybe we can get around that that way.
... it doesn't affect interoperability at all, so I'm looking at advice for those.

tantek: not normative? or it is?

aaronpk: let me pull up the exact sentence
... it is under security considerations

<aaronpk> "Receivers may periodically re-verify Webmentions and update them."

tantek: that sounds normative but optional. if you can add a note to the report stating what you just stated... that gets you to 2 implementations or just 1?

aaronpk: just one but that feature doesn't affect interoperability

tantek: right. well, "MAY" is optional so we need to know somebody implements that so if you document that

aaronpk: there is 1 implementation

tantek: there's no second one?

aaronpk: no, I haven't found a second but I found a second implementation of the first and it is open source and I can link to it

tantek: ok, but they are both optional. that first one is probably more important to document you have 2 implementations
... sandro, anything to add?

sandro: I don't think it is that much worry

tantek: ok, the only remaining thing in that list is "errata process"
... so, aaronpk, what is your process to document errata

aaronpk: github issues

tantek: so, that's accepting, but how will you deal with issues?

aaronpk: in the absence of the working group, is there any ability to spec?

<ben_thatmustbeme> could you use webmention.net at the location for it?

tantek: you won't be able to publish updates to the recommendation so that's why we work to resolve these now

aaronpk: let's say that errata are published on webmention.net after they go through github issues

tantek: ok, if you can pick a URL to say "this is where errata will be published" and link to that in the header like many w3c specs have a link to where they expect to find errata

aaronpk: ok, I can do that

tantek: in terms of processing them since we won't have a group to resolve conflicts you may want to document on webmention.net or elsewhere what your process is for handling issues

aaronpk: what is normal in this case?

tantek: great question. this is an area that is evolving at w3c. many groups are having various success with varying methods. sandro, do you have opinions?

sandro: the question is?

tantek: what is a good process for raising and processing issues after the group is closed? what are good processes you've seen?

<ben_thatmustbeme> would this be a good time to discuss community group as a continuation for the group?

sandro: I've seen two depending if there is staff or not. I've seen a wiki or repo that gathers issues and a community group... having a public list where a public space can comment on that and reflecting consensus when they see it

tantek: much like aaronpk had discussed and have github issues--

sandro: as long as people aren't just closing issues

tantek: so as now issues can't be closed other than by the person that raised them or group consensus

<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Github_Process

tantek: I'm looking for explicit documentation about where errata issues are documented and discussed and a process. and if you think this is good, you use this or come up with something else and you write that down and link to that URL.
... so people can look at that errata and know what has changed since the spec

aaronpk: and that goes somewhere in the spec?

tantek: it goes in an errata section

sandro: actually it is in the template and it is in the header and respec will do that you just say what that errata url is

tantek: yeah, respec should have that and that will show what the process is and the spec only has that one thing it links to

sandro: if you look at existing specs they will have an errata section above the abstract

eprodrom: I think what we are saying is that there will be an errata document that will be linked from the spec
... I guess I'm confused about access to github... can we put an errata document on github and link to that and still have access when the group closes?

sandro: we can keep the access to github, yeah

eprodrom: so linking to github will be sufficient for errata?

tantek: yeah. github seems like a reasonable place to put that. unless there are clear objections, I would put that choice to the editors
... but once the group closes the errata doesn't have an official standing

eprodrom: what has tradionally happened with errata in other specs?
... is there a treshold? where something is so clearly unimplementable that we need a 1.1 version of the spec or do they just pile up?

tantek: both things have happened. sometimes a working group starts back up to review and publish new documents and there are processes where you can amend a document

sandro: I don't think so. it has to be approved by an advisory group so I think there needs to be a working group

tantek: I believe the staff can do that. it still goes to an advisory committee can do but staff can do that in absense of a group?

sandro: you may be right

tantek: you don't want to do it for editorial things but as eprodrom said, severe things may be sufficient reasons to request w3c staff time to through this process
... a judgment call

eprodrom: alright good here

tantek: sounds like once the links are added, we have what we need for a PR transition call, right sandro?

sandro: going from CR to PR... yes. it may be just a mailing list thing... sometimes people make the call that a meeting isn't necessary

<tantek> PROPOSED: Take Webmention CR->PR

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<wilkie> +1

<cwebber2> +1

tantek: if we missed any details, I'm sure people will bring them up

sandro: do we need details about things that aren't implemented?

aaronpk: everything is implemented and there is one feature that only has 1 implementation

sandro: we aren't worried because that is an optional feature

aaronpk: right

sandro: well let's note that so they know that this is the justification

tantek: right, and so anyone whether or not it is the director can see that justification and know why we decided to push this forward

<ben_thatmustbeme> hi director reading this later :)

<sandro> +1 since the WG is satisfied with the level of implementation

tantek: and if we need a call... can we piggyback that with LDN?

sandro: yes

tantek: good

<Zakim> bengo, you wanted to ask "What part of the Social WG chartered deliverables does Webmention fulfill?" It's mentioned as possible input to "A Web protocol to allow the federation of

bengo: you can mostly read that
... is webmention the federation part of our charter? where does it sit in regarding the charter deliverables

sandro: my answer is that we have gone with multiple solutions because we didn't have consensus and that LDN and webmention are both solutions for federation

<csarven> Still alive.

tantek: any other concerns? I'm not sure if we lost csarven and rhiaro

<rhiaro> +1

<bengo> (for my record, I mean't "ActivityPub is closer to [a complete federation protocol] but doesn't mention webmention)

<bengo> +1

<rhiaro> Oh, does webmention link to SWP in the end?

tantek: this is our first PR. I was hoping to get people on the record. if there are any questions or comments to get those documented

<cwebber2> +1

<rhiaro> That was missing a while ago, and we said all our specs would. I forget if that was resolved

eprodrom: we need to add to the proposal to add that we need to add the errata link

sandro: that's part of the process

eprodrom: right, ok. in the past we've had to add edits at some point

<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> rhiaro, yes it does https://webmention.net/draft/#social-web-working-group

<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Webmention

<rhiaro> thanks aaronpk

tantek: these are editorial edits and either I or sandro at some point would just let those edits through

sandro: it can't actually go through the process without it

tantek: I think we can declare this resolved. I see no objections. most of the folks here are saying plus 1

<eprodrom> WOW

RESOLUTION: Webmention CR->PR

<ben_thatmustbeme> woo!

tantek: I assume we need a similar wiki page for the CR transition request for the PR transition request

<eprodrom> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 1121 karma (64 in this channel)

<ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 1122 karma (65 in this channel)

tantek: aaronpk, if you can start that page on the wiki and rhiaro and I can make sure we have all our 't's crossed before we take it to the director

aaronpk: sure I can do that

<cwebber2> still lots of topics to go too...

tantek: reminder: last week we reserved 90 minutes for this call. I realize we are 7 minutes over our normally scheduled time
... right cwebber2

<tantek> Next topic: Micropub CR->PR

Micropub CR to PR

tantek: how are we doing, aaronpk?

aaronpk: lots of progress since last week. the test suite now has tests for each feature
... it has a tool to add your own endpoint and run the tests
... things like adding posts, querying the endpoint, testing authentication, etc

<ben_thatmustbeme> its really nice

aaronpk: I request that anybody who is interested go check it out
... you can submit the implementation report from the tool itself to save people from the process of filling out the github thing

<aaronpk> https://micropub.rocks/implementation-report/server/19/BOgTNq3KDk2DmPKnMVpl

aaronpk: the way it works is that it automatically checks off the features as it goes

<aaronpk> https://micropub.rocks/reports

aaronpk: here is my implementation report and you can see the list of features my implementation supports
... and this URL shows the full list of reports
... and this is how we can compare which features have implementations

<ben_thatmustbeme> i'll have one within the week

aaronpk: I just finished this and so there aren't any reports except for mine so I have to work on getting people to submit them

<aaronpk> https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/

<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] Micropub

aaronpk: the new CR draft went up this morning based on the call last week

tantek: ok. that's good. that means we have a new 4 week CR period starting today. ending 4 weeks from today.
... so we have to wait at least until then until we propose going to PR

sandro: yep

aaronpk: and that date is November 15th which is a week before our face-to-face

<aaronpk> oops

tantek: congrats on your implementation reports and you have 4 weeks to get those implementation reports from other people
... the more you can get from outside the group the better
... if you want to prepare in advance, just as you are for webmention, if you document the errata process that will check that off as well

aaronpk: I'll do the same for micropub as I do for webmention

tantek: seems like nothing else to do here. should we bring it back up in 2 weeks? or sooner?

aaronpk: I'm happy to give a short status update every week. basically just an update on the number of implementation reports

tantek: that's fine just as document status so we have more time for documents that need more discussion

aaronpk: great

tantek: alright, good progress and we'll see how the reports go
... any questions? to be clear: no PR until 4 weeks from today.

aaronpk: I would like to do the vote for PR at the face-to-face since the time will be up by then

tantek: ok. you can add that to the topics for the face-to-face then
... let's go to AS2 CR to PR

<tantek> Next topic: AS2 CR->PR status Evan & James

AS2 CR to PR

eprodrom: running through our checklist for PR status, the most important is the issues and any open normative issues
... we have only editorial issues except one normative issue we talked about already
... this changes a requirement from MAY to SHOULD and we talked about it and decided it won't take the same effort to redo the editorial process
... as far as issues are concerned we are doing well. I do need to clean out editorial issues
... I can do that over the next week or so
... we have a couple of comments that are still waiting for a reply from the commenter... I believe we said around 30 days for those if there is no response?
... so it may be time to start to wrap those up
... rhiaro has done a couple of those so I don't know if we should wrap those up or not

tantek: sooner is better... if we need a changes it would reset the clock

eprodrom: understood.

<eprodrom> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/338

eprodrom: we have a couple of requests that we decided, for example markup in the name where the poster wanted markup in the name but we decided in the group not to do that and we are waiting for their response
... we decided we would wait. I'm happy closing without the response.
... both the ones we have outstanding we decided not to implement are not normative changes

<eprodrom> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/336

tantek: what we need with these issues is a comment "the working group decided <whatever the resolution was>" and a link to show our due dilligence to show to the director that we resolved this issue and the commenter didn't respond or disagreed

eprodrom: I can do that. that's probably the best way to do it for now
... the other question is whether or not we had features not covered by test document
... everything we marked as a "feature" is covered by a test document and covered by the validator
... I think we have sufficient test coverage there to say we are testing all the features

tantek: great news

eprodrom: that was a big step and we are past that
... the last big item for us is implementations and implementation reports

<rhiaro> I can do an implementation report for my site

<rhiaro> (when it's un-broken again)

eprodrom: we will have 2 reports from the editors and we are looking for reports on public implementations such as pump.io and mediagoblin
... we have a couple of incoming notifications on incoming implementations and am not sure they will be complete before we move to PR
... one was from Twitter which is exciting and another open source one
... we will likely have around 5 implementations

tantek: did I hear correctly? we expect Twitter to implement AS2?

eprodrom: yes. this was an incoming request from Twitter that said they would implement AS2

<bengo> investigating is different that "we expect"

eprodrom: I didn't hold them to this to ask "how would this be used" but yes, it was incoming from Twitter engineernig

sandro: I think it would be worth waiting if it gets them on board with the announcement
... and say "hey, would you like to be involved in the press for this?" and hold off a bit

eprodrom: yeah. I'll be as straight-forward as possible; this was not from high-level people from Twitter. It was Twitter engineers saying yeah we want to implement this.

sandro: traditionally, around the time your are at PR and go to REC, you get testimonials.
... even if they haven't implemented it but they are willing to say they are looking at it, that's still a win-win there

eprodrom: sounds good
... I would be reluctant to get an annoucement from Twitter but would be happy to reach out to those who reached out to me and see if they want to give a testimonial.

sandro: and if they tweet about it, we could just link to the tweet

tantek: and, yeah, try to get a course understanding if they want to implement this in a month or three months or just looking at it it helps us decide how to follow up on it

eprodrom: sounds good

tantek: and then you aren't getting a committment but rather a rough idea
... if they say 1 month, ok, we can get an implementation report. just to set up expectations

eprodrom: I will do that

tantek: is there a link to the current implementation reports?

eprodrom: right now we don't have reports in the repo. it is in the same spot but no reports are in there

<eprodrom> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/tree/master/implementation-reports

eprodrom: we are waiting on reports from current implementers

tantek: including yourselves?

eprodrom: yeah

<aaronpk> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kH385v6skHbMre_bmz1Vyma8BDemt7WHlM0ZQwVXBOo/edit?usp=sharing

tantek: and a report summary. when you have many reports... like aaronpk-- can you drop a link to your report summary?
... something like that. like a list of features or a test of the feature so we can see who got them and who supports them.
... and the implementations from editors and people in the group and people outside the group to show the director
... something to consider. it is not a requirement, it just helps

eprodrom: I hear you

tantek: and if you want to get a leg up, the errata process as well

eprodrom: sounds good

<Zakim> rhiaro, you wanted to request another (up to) 15 minutes to make sure we fit AP in

tantek: any questions on AS2 progress?

ActivityPub WD->CR status

tantek: as rhiaro mentions, we only have a few minutes left so I'll ask cwebber2 how much time he wants

cwebber2: I would like the group's feedback on if we can get to CR

<sandro> +1 extending 15m

tantek: are folks able to go another 15 minutes?

<wilkie> +1

tantek: thanks to wilkie for being awesome (paraphrasing)

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

tantek: cwebber2 walk us through what's next for activitypub to CR

cwebber2: we did get so much feedback and tried to incorporate everything
... I think we got through all the issues worth addressing

<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues

<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/156

<rhiaro> wilkie++ for scribing forever

<Loqi> wilkie has 37 karma

cwebber2: still 19 issues open but I think they are all editorial with exception of #156 which was said to be a blocking for activity pub support on some existing implementations
... as in if patrick stewart publishes a mention to 1 million subscribers that servers don't get overloaded exchanging that
... we have a solution that diaspora seems to support but friendica hasn't responded

<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/155

cwebber2: someone in #155 mentions adding a history feature which sounds awesome but getting it right in this small timeframe would be difficult given the time and it would work as an extension
... I think we addressed the major issues. there is feedback I still want to record from the wide review.

<rhiaro> The test plan

cwebber2: I don't have the test plan but I could have it by the CR call
... I could describe it briefly if that helps

tantek: I think we need a link to where the test suite will go and at that link describe the test plan description
... there is confidence in the group that you can summarize what you would say there and point the director to that during the call and say we don't have it yet but this is how we would develop it in CR
... I'm looking at the issues submitted to activitypub and congrats on the issues from outside the group. it is better to get those than not. good sign. congrats on that.
... looking at the open issues, half of them seem editorial but the rest don't seem obviously editorial and that's something to resolve before moving forward

cwebber2: a number of them *are* editorial but you're right we haven't proven they are editorial

<tantek> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues

cwebber2: should we postpone moving to CR until next week?

tantek: just by looking at that, it would be hard to say to the director "hey we resolved these issues" and it would be hard to explain away these open issues that aren't marked editorial
... I think the director would push back on that to get the issues marked accordingly
... sandro?

sandro: I haven't looked the issues so I don't know how to judge exactly

tantek: if it was one or two issues then we could take the burden of explaining those

sandro: we should have all the issues closed before we request

tantek: a lot of these are new

sandro: we should have gone to CR last week!

tantek: the challenge here is to provide some reasoning. even if you pass the director and go to CR, the issues these would pose would lead us to go to CR again and slow us down at getting through CR
... that's the reasoning here
... let's try to reduce that chance.. that's the goal

cwebber2: I managed to churn through a substantial number of issues last week. so I should be able to get through these by next week. let's postpone.

tantek: that seems wise
... that's regarding issues. so, you will add the link to the test suite and summary.
... sounds like you have many folks actively implementing?

cwebber2: yes

tantek: do you have an expected number of implementations to know how many reports you'd get?

cwebber2: my estimate is at least mediagoblin, the implementations I've done, rhiaro's implementation, someone else's implementation, and pump.io are at least 5

tantek: diaspora and friendica... any chance of reports from them?

cwebber2: it is unlikely diaspora will implement within the short time of this group
... they are pushing hard on their own protocol. there are folks there that seem open to implementing it in diaspora and filing issues, and it is pivoting toward that but not fast enough for this group
... more likely in friendica because they implement everything

tantek: any other implementations you are seeing as potential outside of the working group?

cwebber2: pump.io for one

<rhiaro> There are some individuals in Edinburgh who are looking at AP

tantek: oh ok. I was counting eprodrom in that but I guess they are outside the group at this point

cwebber2: yeah, depends. but eprodrom hasn't worked on that in a while so

eprodrom: yeah, I will be involved in that implementation, sorry!
... I want to say that it would be a clean-room implementation but no, sorry

tantek: would rather that than not, so thanks eprodrom

cwebber2: I don't know at this point who outside of the group

tantek: friendica

cwebber2: not sure for certain

tantek: that's something we can work on. that's ok. I'm just going to keep asking the question so we continue to work on it
... I think we know what to do to get activitypub closer to CR for next week?

cwebber2: yep

tantek: perhaps you can start the wiki page for the CR transition request?
... that template can also remind you of additional details

cwebber2: it has been started already

tantek: sorry. I didn't find it.
... I'm also thinking about other details we can get going in parallel while these issues are resolved
... alright, this is one I'd like to carry forward to next week's agenda and get it closer to CR
... any other questions on activitypub
... ok. that takes us to the end of discussion items and we have a minute left in our extended telecon time
... anyone else have any questions regarding document status or other business

<eprodrom> Whew

<eprodrom> Looooooong meeting

<eprodrom> \o/

tantek: not hearing anything
... thanks everyone. this was a long meeting. I'm going to say that we should mark out 90 minutes for next week
... probably only use 60 but if you could block out 90 minutes, that would be appreciated
... eprodrom is chairing, is that good?

eprodrom: I have to check. I'll let you know over email

tantek: thanks everyone

sandro: if we could talk more seriously about pubsub and how close we are to PR on that

tantek: CR?

sandro: yeah, CR, sorry. test suites and such.

tantek: good point. julien, are you on the call?

sandro: he said he could only be on for 30 minutes so I assume not

tantek: ok. I'll add these to items to the agenda.

<aaronpk> *whew* well maybe now that micropub.rocks is done i can start a test suite for pubsub :)

tantek: and with that...

<sandro> +1000 aaronpk

tantek: aaronpk just volunteered to work on a test suite on pubsub

sandro: well he knows how to do it now

tantek: well we'll put your name on that item now
... thanks everyone. good luck with all of your tasks

<tantek> wilkie++ for minuting an extra long telcon!

<tantek> also congrats to both aaronpk on resolution to take webmention to PR, and rhiaro & csarven on resolution to take LDN to CR! thank you for all your diligent hard work.

<tantek> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 1123 karma (66 in this channel)

<tantek> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 244 karma (133 in this channel)

<tantek> csarven++

<Loqi> csarven has -30 karma (9 in this channel)

<csarven> Thanks team. Really happy with the progress

<tantek> csarven, it's been really impressive to see the rapid progress on LDN.

<csarven> It is almost like a day job.

<aaronpk> heh yeah, i've been spending day job amounts of time on this the past several weeks

<csarven> or a early morning job (like right now)

<csarven> an

<csarven> aaronpk: It will pay off. see step 3 in the profit model

<aaronpk> haha

<Loqi> awesome

<csarven> It goes without saying but the best part of us doing all this is that we want to use it

<aaronpk> definitely

<aaronpk> having these test tools has also helped my own implementations as well

<rhiaro> This determination to implement our own protocols has meant my website has been broken more times in the last year than ever before!

<csarven> Having the spec itself also help me iron out my implementation. The tests will probably help even more.

<tantek> I have drafted next week's telcon agenda starting with the discussion items we agreed to from today's call (namely, next steps for AS2, ActivityPub, and PubSub, in that order). Please add more here: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-25#Discussion_Items

<tantek> rhiaro: I forgot to request during the call, could you prepare an update to Social Web Protocols to go out on Thursday since PubSub is going to FPWD?

<tantek> I suppose that may have to just be an editor's draft update, until we can resolve to publish an update to SWP on next week's telcon

<tantek> I'll add to agenda

<rhiaro> Sure tantek

<rhiaro> Feel free to remind me if I don't seem to have done it by thursday

<rhiaro> Gonna send out transition requests for ldn and webmention then go to sleeeep

<tantek> Thank you!

<tantek> Yes - will be great if we can do those in the same telcon

<tantek> Updated https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Meetings for next meetings as well

<tantek> rhiaro: oh dear - hope you get some sleep and feel better

<tantek> In the morning (your time) could you add fragment IDs to your h2s on https://rhiaro.co.uk/2016/09/socialwg7-summary e.g. for "Wednesday demos" ? Thanks!

<rhiaro> good call

<rhiaro> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Approve minutes for F2F7 both day 1 and 2 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-22-minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-09-23-minutes
Approve minutes from telecon 2 weeks ago: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-04-minutes
Approve minutes from last week's telecon: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-10-11-minutes
Close LDN issue 52 without change as there isn't a better term that makes it worth changing at this point
Take LDN TO CR
Webmention CR->PR

Socialwg/2016-10-18-minutes

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

18 Oct 2016

Attendees

Contents

Approval of Minutes

PubSub FPWD

LDN Working Draft to CR

Webmention CR->PR status

Micropub CR to PR

AS2 CR to PR

ActivityPub WD->CR status

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions