Socialwg/2017-11-14-minutes

14 Nov 2017

Attendees

Present: tantek, cwebber, rhiaro, ajordan, eprodrom, aaronpk, bengo, sandro
Regrets
Chair: eprodrom
Scribe: rhiaro, bengo, cwebber2

cwebber2: It was more of a social CG gathering, but still interesting and relevant
... Off the top of my memory, we started off with introducing people and what's happening in this space
... including one of the mastodon node hosters was there, toot.cafe
... we demo'd two mastodon sites interoperating
... it was adhoc
... we then moved to discussing anti abuse tooling
... and what we could do to get the ideas effective. a lot about distributed block lists and other things
... and then it went into something that's not currently work in the socialcg but a favourite rathole of mine
... what would it bel ike ifyou had a federated MUD or other federated game
... There may have been other things
... But people were excited about social spaces with rules

<tantek> (we discussed Vouch a bit too as part of anti-abuse)

cwebber2: any questions?

<tantek> SocialCG meeting at TPAC: https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2017-11-06

<Loqi> Social Web Incubator Community Group Meeting at TPAC

eprodrom: was there any discussion by any Members who showed up about either of the specs that we're working on right now?

cwebber2: there were some people from the TAG who were interested in this stuff
... There were two separate meetings! I'm mixing them up
... We had a conversation where the TAG showed up and I'm tryign to remember everything that happened there. We spent more time talking about .. we also had somebody from bridgy (snarfed Ryan Barrett)
... that's where most of the conversation about the anti abuse tooling happened

<tantek> eprodrom, there were questions about like should brands/companies just install and launch their own Mastodon instances? and we discussed the Monoculture problem

cwebber2: The TAG didn't know mastodon were using our protocol

<tantek> (like if everyone "just runs Mastodon", then AP becomes the Mastodon API instead of an open standard)

cwebber2: The majority of the conversation was anti abuse tooling

eprodrom: I'm pretty surprised about that
... it doesn't seem like the network is active enough that abuse is a problem

cwebber2: there's a LOT of active moderation on mastodon
... that's one of the biggest topics
... a lot of mastodon users are pretty happy is because mastodon builds in a lot of tooling
... there has been a culture clash between people from different communities
... people are concerned about making sure it keeps working

eprodrom: Talking about tooling, you mean like spam filters? Or is it more like stuff that's built into particular networks like silencing and so on?

cwebber2: people are interested in all of that across the board
... there's the general feeling that we have to explore a number of different approaches and it's not clear which arethe most accessible or that we might need a combination ot really get the job done
... a lot of people are really interested in federated block lists and a web of trust and distrust
... There was one more topic that was pretty big

<cwebber2> https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/issues/177#issuecomment-344056590

<Loqi> [nightpool] Me and @Gargron and a couple other developers had a chat on Saturday, and we decided that this is currently the highest priority enhancement for us as a project. We hope to have at least partial fixes for this emerge soon, things that address some of...

cwebber2: and is increasing because it looks like this is going to be the next major topic in mastodon
... is account migration
... still a big issue that people are really intersted in
... how to handle if your server goes down or you want to move for whatever reason
... maybe you want to move becus eyou're not happy with the moderation policies, or you're not happy because.. or you want to host your own
... These remain the two biggest conversations in the CG
... interesting also to see that the people who showed up without prior experience also wanted to talk about these issues

eprodrom: really interesting
... definitely interesting questions
... migration is a pretty fun one
... a lot of stuff that does not necessarily seem to be standards questions

<eprodrom> scribe?

<bengo> I will

<eprodrom> scribenick: bengo

<Loqi> Eprodrom made 2 edits to Socialwg/2017-11-14 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=105214&oldid=105211

<Loqi> Strugee made 1 edit to Socialwg/2017-11-14 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=105213&oldid=105212

eprodrom is there a cg meeting tomorrow?

cwebber2 no, next week

eprodrom there will be some things that are patterns, some are one-off APIs, other things that might be standardized

sandro my perception of mastodon is that the community there polices in a way that there are good people and bad people

rhiaro (take scribe back?)

sandro I happen to agree with their notion of good peopel and bad people, but not their policing

sandro obviously you could have a fork where someone uses a fork and deploy a node cut off from mian network

<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro

eprodrom: it's interesting to see how these patterns work out
... I think those are things we can talk about at the CG

<ajordan> eprodrom: wondering if we can do AS2 since I have to leave

eprodrom: tantek, anything about TPAC?

<ajordan> we can postpone too

<ajordan> no no no

<tantek> rhiaro, sounds like cwebber2 covered it :) just dropped in the wiki page for our first SocialCG f2f! https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/2017-11-06

<Loqi> Social Web Incubator Community Group Meeting at TPAC

<tantek> and npdoty took decent notes too in IRC https://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2017-11-06#t1510012696205

<Loqi> [tantek] hey hey we're in the SocialCG f2f at TPAC!!!

WebSub

eprodrom: sandro, upate?

sandro: I'm a little confused about process here. There are two comments and I believe they are technically member confidential
... I don't know how the group is supposed to respond to that
... they both request the change but don't require it

<tantek> sandro, I believe there is only one substantive comment (HTTPS must vs should)

<tantek> the other is editorial about the WBS system vs what the spec says

sandro: one is that HTTPS should be a MUST rather than a SHOULD
... our reply to that is that we can't for back compat

<tantek> which we should log in GitHub and discuss

<tantek> yes exactly. agreed with sandro

eprodrom: have we talked about this before?

aaronpk: I don't think we have

<tantek> we can even resolve on that if someone can create the issue in GH fast enough :)

aaronpk: I agree we don't have to require it because it uses the secret to verify the payload
... HTTPS just provides privacy on the transport, which is not a guarantee that we are claiming to make
... The spec should be concerned about successfully delivering notifications, which can be verified by HTTPS or the secret

sandro: but if you don't use https when you send the secret?

<tantek> The compat argument is the strongest one IMO

aaronpk: the hashing mechanism verifies the payload even over http

<cwebber2> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#obj-id it's a SHOULD in ActivityPub

cwebber2: it's a SHOULD in AP because it might have some sort of use inside a corporate network with http
... 2 is that you may use it with a scheme that's not http at all. At Rebooting WoT something about ids
... URIs have schemes beyond http and https. I feel like that's a reasonable justification here

eprodrom: in AP they act as identifiers so that's fine
... in websub we're talking about actual endpoints that are being used for posting and retreiving things
... so it's a bit more important
... it sounds like the question is is the verifiability of http with extra parameters in websub sufficient that we don't need to make this a MUST
... and I think that that's the case
... should we open and close an issue?

aaronpk: I guess so

eprodrom: Or we can have a resolution right now

aaronpk: let's resolve it on the call then we can reference a link

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: retain HTTPS as a "should" or "recommended" requirement in WebSub

<cwebber2> +1

<ajordan> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<ajordan> +0

<eprodrom> +1

sandro: I don't agree with the security claim but I do agree with the back compat

aaronpk: you don't agree that the hash is enough to verify the paylaod?

sandro: on the delivery it is but on the earlier part it isn't

<bengo> +1

sandro: We don't say the hub must either do we?
... it would be higher priority to make the hub do it

<sandro> +1 for backward compatibility, extensibility

<aaronpk> +1

eprodrom: basically we say it is strongly recommended

<eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/TR/websub/#security-considerations

eprodrom: to use https for all requests

<eprodrom> "It is strongly recommended to use HTTPS for all requests."

sandro: the notification endpoint, there's not that much reason but still probably a good idea

eprodrom: any objections?

RESOLUTION: retain HTTPS as a "should" or "recommended" requirement in WebSub

sandro: second issue is editorial regarding editors list

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: add invited expert status for author and editors of WebSub

<eprodrom> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<sandro> +1 as affiliation, in head matter

<aaronpk> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<ajordan_> +1

eprodrom: any reservations to that?

RESOLUTION: add invited expert status for author and editors of WebSub

eprodrom: do we need a proposal to publish?

sandro: at this point it's up to director not the WG
... any other editorial changes?

<tantek> uh, if they're employees of W3C members I'm not sure we can do that

<tantek> like folks that work for Google

aaronpk: still a couple of open issues which might result in editorial changes

sandro: we should resolve that we'd like these changes
... if we can do that in the next 10 minutes

<tantek> sandro, perhaps ask if they could join the WG?

<aaronpk> tantek, just julien and me

<tantek> ok

<sandro> tantek, as if who could join the WG...??

<tantek> sandro, Brad?

aaronpk: one review we got I split up into issues and we haven't talked about them yet

eprodrom: what are our options for incorporating those?
... something we need to decide here or should we discuss as we go to PR

sandro: we're already at PR

eprodrom: REC

sandro: we should solve before we ask for transition to REC

<tantek> we have to come up with responses to all the comments on the PR

eprodrom: so what is outstanding?

<tantek> including the issues that aaronpk split-up from that one mega-issue

aaronpk: it's a bunch of really small things, should be editorial
... but we do need to respond to all of them

<sandro> tantek, feel free, but I'd be surprised if they'd do it, and I don't see why it would matter at this point

eprodrom: there are 17 items. I'm not sure we have time

<tantek> we need 1) answers to those issues (either by aaronpk, or discussed here), and 2) resolutions from the WG on those answers

<tantek> do we need a telcon next week for this?

<ajordan_> LGTM

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

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

AP

cwebber2: there are two open issues, one is a personal TODO so I'll move it out
... The implementation reports for mastodon is also not an issue, we're just trying to wrap up their implementation reports
... so no open issues left, just two things for the editors' sake that won't affect the spec
... hoorraaayyy

<cwebber2> https://activitypub.rocks/implementation-report/

cwebber2: Good news, we have implementation reports page and 5 submissions, and 1 more pending

<cwebber2> http://sebsauvage.net/paste/?433151b95b1eea98#lFE+VnEdmlK859Vl9VRonA0s3wtzqCRLL9jLC7xkE88=

cwebber2: things that don't yet have two submissions ^
... Most do
... 6 client ones
... 6 inbox delivery issues
... and two security considerations
... the bad news is it's today and we still have these
... the good news is I think if I took a week we could get them

<bengo> I can probably add some stuff to distbin where it helps get to 2

<rhiaro> I need to catch up my implementation too :s

cwebber2: I assume we want to wait til next week to move to PR

sandro: we can't move forward until we have time

cwebber2: that's the state of things
... both for WebSub and AP we need a call next week

eprodrom: working backwards, if we approve PR next week will that count?

sandro: technically we only have to go to PR by the end of the WG. It looks bad, but we can technically do it
... to actually go to REC by the end of the WG maybe next week we can still do it
... let's try for next week, but it's not the end of the world if we can't

cwebber2: I'm in favour of everything ready for PR next week
... I'm very confident that will happen

eprdrom: will get mine in

eprodrom: will get mine in

<bengo> evan can make activitypubcoin

eprodrom: Seems like we're moving along

<ajordan_> if I go *really* hard I might be able to land AP in pump.io master

<ajordan_> don't want to commit though because I have some papers due lol

eprodrom: it doesn' thave to go to master AJ, just has to exist

<ajordan_> 👍

eprodrom: Anything else about AP?

cwebber2: not as far as I know

<bengo> Ooh!

<bengo> I have a thing

eprodrom: any other business?

<bengo> I bought activitypub.com

<bengo> where should I redirect it?

<Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to Socialwg/2017-11-14 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=105215&oldid=105214

<bengo> activitypub.rocks?

<bengo> or spec?

<sandro> ajordan_, it sounds like you don't need to do that for next week, but instead plan to have that for the REC announcement

<cwebber2> bengo: I guess activitypub.rocks would be good!

cwebber2: why didn't i buy that...??

<bengo> I will

<bengo> but for now...

eprodrom: hold onto it and sell it when AP is huge

<ajordan_> sandro: noted, that's nice to know

<cwebber2> bengo: thank youuu

<bengo> activitypub.rocks

<bengo> will do this week

eprodrom: it looks like we have 10 minutes so ajordan_ are you here?

ajordan: was something else
... I'm almost done weith a webmention implementation and websub shouldn't be too far off
... something automatically do the right thing.
... AS2 is really close to shipping in pump.io
... There's one issue on the agenda
... and AP isn't far behind that

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note concern about outstanding issues on WebSub

AOB

tantek: we have quite a few number as the result of comments on websub
... I think we need to promptly have answeres to those that the group resolves on, either resulting in no changes or editorial changes, assuming there isn't an actual implementation problem
... I feel a sense of urgency on that

eprodrom: we agreed earlier that aaron and julien are going to look through these, identify ones that don't require WG input and then we will next tuesday have another meeting where we'll vote on the rest of them

sandro: can we plan for next week being 90 mins?

tantek: I agree

<cwebber2> +1 to a long meeting next week

<ajordan_> I can't do longer than 60 minutes as usual but by all means go for it

tantek: Second thing.. because we're trying to wrap up our normative documents and there's a lot of activity going on, and stuff beyond in the CG
... there are a lot of implementations that interoperate in ways that we ight not have fully covered
... I think there's opportunity here if interest to close out the year with a few informative notes that are kind of capturing the state of interop of extensions or additons to existing specs
... just want to put it out as something to think about
... Thinking about treating PTD that way because it's evolving

<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2

eprodrom: one thing the CG is discussing is what's missing, maybe we can talk about what can be done there and move to a note, or move that work to the CG

<ajordan_> there's already a wiki page

tantek: I'd love to have the CG have a note about what topics are worth exploring

eprodrom: ok great, I want to move to ajordan_'s topic of discussion... if you want to bring it up now before 2:00?

ajordan_: I'll bring it up to the CG tomorrow
... AS2 doc says how to transform AS1 -> AS2 but says nothing about the vocabulary

<tantek> in particular I'd like to see us publish a number of "interop NOTEs" where we document uses of our specs with 3+ more interop impls

ajordan_: pump.io has to transform as1 to as2 as last step of response handler, but some of them have no equivalent in as2

eprodrom: my first response is if we need to do that we'll do an extension vocabulary... I'm pretty suprised we have stuff in pump.io that didn't make it into as2 but sometimes that happens

ajordan_: I have no data on what verbs people are actually using, so I don't know if there's data out there for it
... my assumpiton is a lot of verbs were dropped due to low evidence of implementation

eprodrom: why don't you and I talk about this, if parts of pump.io don't have a match we'll do an extension vocab

ajordan_: I was just consulting thee as1 spec

sandro: I encourage you put them in the as2 namespace, that's what the CG is meant to do

eprodrom: I don't think there's time for next week

sandro: I don't think there's time pressure

eprodrom: you had asked me about this earlier ajordan_, we'll deal with it soon
... any other business?
... no CG meeting tomorrow so we'll deal with this 1 on 1 ajordan_
... we have a meeting same time same place but longer next week
... tantek, can you chair?

tantek: ACK, can chair

eprodrom: thanks everyone!

<ajordan_> thanks all! hope the noisy hallway wasn't too bad lol

<eprodrom> ha

<eprodrom> OK, thanks everyone

trackbot, end meeting

Socialwg/2017-11-14-minutes

14 Nov 2017

Attendees

Contents

Last week's minutes 31st Oct

TPAC update

WebSub

AP

AOB