16:59:25 RRSAgent has joined #social
16:59:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/31-social-irc
16:59:27 RRSAgent, make logs public
16:59:29 Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:59:29 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
16:59:30 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:59:30 Date: 31 March 2015
16:59:57 eprodrom: oh, was pump.io originally called "activitypump"?
17:00:04 yes
17:00:09 and oshepherd's spec too right?
17:00:12 Yes
17:00:15 so that's two activitypumps
17:00:17 confusing :)
17:00:28 zakim, this is socl
17:00:29 ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
17:00:39 zakim, who's on the phone?
17:00:40 On the phone I see jasnell, Sandro, Arnaud
17:00:40 + +1.617.247.aaaa
17:00:59 Zakim, aaaa is me
17:00:59 +ben_thatmustbeme; got it
17:01:02 +??P4
17:01:07 Zakim, mute me
17:01:07 ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted
17:01:31 + +33.6.43.93.aabb
17:01:57 + +1.514.554.aacc
17:02:04 Zakim, aacc is me
17:02:04 +eprodrom; got it
17:03:00 hi
17:03:04 Ah!
17:03:07 +??P3
17:03:11 zakim, ??p3 is me
17:03:11 +tantek; got it
17:03:20 tantek: elf-pavlik left you a message on 3/30 at 11:24am: do you see http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats2#combining_microformats similar to http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#embedding ? http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-03-30/line/1427739866728
17:03:23 zakim, aabb is bblfish
17:03:23 +bblfish; got it
17:03:44 SIP is once again not working here
17:03:46 Arnaud: I'd like to volunteer to scribe
17:03:48 though it is to other servers
17:03:48 not sure
17:03:55 It's been a long time since I scribed
17:04:01 eprodrom++
17:04:03 eprodrom has 10 karma
17:04:11 it works on the fsf's sip server
17:04:14 scribenick eprodrom
17:04:25 scribenick: eprodrom
17:04:29 I'll just dial in, as soon as my phone gets reception
17:04:30 This time it's personal
17:04:33 elf-pavlik: the microformats embedding in JSON results is based on microdata embedding in JSON, which predates the JSON-LD work. perhaps JSON-LD also copied microdata in that respect.
17:04:35 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-31
17:04:49 eprodrom has changed the topic to: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-31
17:05:12 Arnaud: minutes of 10 March are still missing
17:05:27 Arnaud: skip minutes of 10 March until updated by aaronpk
17:05:50 note, aaronpk offered regrets in advance for today's telcon
17:05:50 +??P8
17:05:51 PROPOSED: Approval of Minutes of 24 March 2015 Teleconf
17:05:57 +Ann
17:05:58 Arnaud: scribes should mark the topics to make it easier to add the minutes
17:05:58 Zakim: ??P8 is me
17:06:00 +21
17:06:00 +1
17:06:01 no objection
17:06:03 Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:06:03 +Tsyesika; got it
17:06:05 RESOLVED: Approval of Minutes of 24 March 2015 Teleconf
17:06:08 Zakim, mute me
17:06:08 Tsyesika should now be muted
17:06:23 Arnaud: We are also missing minutes from the F2F
17:06:36 There was a problem with the IRC logs, hhalpin was going to sort it out
17:06:41 do we at least have good IRC logs from the f2f?
17:06:49 I think mixed ones :)
17:06:49 Next teleconference 4/7
17:06:59 depends, was timbl talking? :)
17:07:02 Arnaud: Next F2F in Paris in May
17:07:14 Arnaud: Pending confirmation of location
17:07:19 he talks so fast
17:07:25 Arnaud: hhalpin confirmed INRIA for F2F
17:07:33 Arnaud: new page for F2F meeting
17:07:53 added myself to regrets for Paris F2F
17:08:02 Arnaud: please add yourself to the sections for the Paris F2F
17:08:03 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-04
17:08:11 Arnaud: there is also a link to hotels
17:08:16 + +1.773.614.aadd
17:08:20 W3C has negotiated a deal with the hotel
17:08:26 Zakim, aadd is me
17:08:26 +cwebber2; got it
17:08:33 Arnaud: it's not the best deal, but it is available
17:08:49 Arnaud: breakfast is included. However, it is nonrefundable.
17:09:12 Arnaud: takes about 30 minutes including walking and Metro from hotel to INRIA.
17:09:41 Arnaud: Everyone will need to buy their own lunch.
17:09:53 Arnaud: we'll continue to organize on the wiki page to develop an agenda.
17:10:03 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83239&oldid=83221
17:10:07 q+ re: formal process to open/close ISSUEs in W3C Tracker
17:10:13 TOPIC: Tracking of Actions and Issues
17:10:23 Arnaud: let's first look at the actions
17:10:33 q+
17:11:00 q+
17:11:34 most of the open actions look like things raised / assigned by group / one person to another person - not personal to do
17:11:40 ack jasnell
17:11:52 Arnaud: notes that using the issue tracker for a personal todo system is probably inappropriate but OK now
17:12:07 !tell harry we need action-14 reloved
17:12:07 jasnell: We need ISSUE-14 to be closed, Harry Halpin needs to complete
17:12:08 Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
17:12:16 I'll note that action-26 has some progress since jasnell merged my first pull request for fixes to microformats examples, and I'm working on more fixes.
17:12:17 jasnell: we're using a namespace that's not official
17:12:30 definitely more coming! thanks!
17:12:31 jasnell: We have had progress on action-26, microformats review
17:12:53 jasnell: action-29, outreach has happened, no need to leave this still open.
17:13:09 Arnaud: we can close action 29
17:13:29 jasnell: I posted a notice to the mailing list about test suites
17:13:33 issue-8
17:13:33 issue-8 -- Test suite for activity streams 2.0 -- open
17:13:33 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/8
17:13:44 did I hear correctly that no one formerly from the open social org responded / decided to join Social Web WG?
17:13:49 re: action-29
17:14:02 ack eprodrom
17:14:21 +[IPcaller]
17:14:24 Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:14:24 +wilkie; got it
17:14:46 hello sorry I'm late!!
17:15:01 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Implementations
17:15:08 elf-pavlik, does action-49 need to be in action tracking?
17:15:11 eprodrom: I'd like to have a mechanism that does it automatically for different programming languages
17:15:38 ben_thatmustbeme, on one published it during last F2F
17:16:03 jasnell: action 50 and 57 could be combined
17:16:24 eprodrom, look at tests in james repo
17:16:51 eprodrom: are there automated example extraction tools?
17:17:04 Arnaud: elf-pavlik, can action 50 and 57 be combined
17:17:37 elf-pavlik: I will work with eprodrom to make the examples easier to use
17:17:50 elf-pavlik: there are some scripts for extracting the examples already
17:17:53 elf-pavlik++
17:17:55 Thanks
17:17:56 elf-pavlik has 14 karma
17:18:18 q+
17:18:38 Arnaud: we have a number of issues that have been raised that should be disposed of
17:18:42 wow 18 raised issues
17:18:49 TOPIC: Issues
17:18:53 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/raised
17:18:58 elf-pavlik: you're put down regrets for paris? too bad :(
17:19:03 I was hoping you and Tsyesika could meet!
17:19:10 Arnaud: elf-pavlik and jasnell have both proposed issues to cover
17:19:11 cwebber2, i participate!
17:19:25 ack elf-pavlik
17:19:26 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss formal process to open/close ISSUEs in W3C Tracker
17:20:02 Abasset made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83240&oldid=83239
17:20:16 q+ to prefer using github issues for any issues which are only about the AS spec.
17:20:25 Arnaud: we have two issue trackers, Github and W3C
17:20:52 Arnaud: we should use Github for minor editorial issues, W3C for issues that should be decided by the WG
17:20:52 q+ to also note that I thought we left choice of issue tracking venue up to editor
17:20:56 Arnaud++
17:20:58 Arnaud has 9 karma
17:21:24 ack jasnell
17:21:45 Arnaud: It's a heavier process, but official
17:21:59 jasnell: ISSUE 4, 7, 20, 23 could be safely closed
17:22:03 -1
17:22:05 -1
17:22:13 jasnell: implicit typing can be closed, until there's a proposal
17:22:21 why is there both an open action and issue on that?
17:22:35 wait I'm confused why are we discussion open vs. raised issues?
17:22:36 jasnell: pre-JSON-LD syntax is addressed in the spec, ISSUE-7
17:22:40 neither 4 nor 7 are "raised"
17:23:14 q+ re: -1 on closing issues which don't have clear resulution *in notes*
17:23:30 my apologies. I missed the part that we were focusing on raised
17:23:39 Arnaud: we should decide whether raised issues should be closed or opened
17:23:57 q+
17:24:00 one protocol per child
17:24:28 Arnaud: we've suffered from too many discussion protocols
17:24:35 ack tantek
17:24:35 tantek, you wanted to prefer using github issues for any issues which are only about the AS spec. and to also note that I thought we left choice of issue tracking venue up to
17:24:38 ... editor
17:24:51 elf-pavlik: (btw I see my mistake, I misread participants as regrets :))
17:25:02 (I blame browser scroll behavior!)
17:25:10 tantek: for issues related to a spec, we should defer to the issue tracking mechanism that the spec editor prefers
17:25:40 q+
17:25:46 ack elf-pavlik
17:25:48 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss -1 on closing issues which don't have clear resulution *in notes*
17:26:15 elf-pavlik: some of the issues that jasnell proposed to close don't have information, so we can't resolve them.
17:26:18 it's not closing if it's not open
17:26:24 it's *rejecting*
17:26:40 if an issue lacks specific links then yes we should reject
17:26:49 elf-pavlik: we didn't clarify whether some issues with vocabulary should be handled at the WG level
17:27:07 i would agree, if there isn't any explanation, it can always be resubmitted with more information
17:27:10 Arnaud: I disagree. It's up to the WG to decide on issues of vocabulary.
17:27:15 Zakim, who is here?
17:27:15 On the phone I see jasnell, Sandro, Arnaud, ben_thatmustbeme (muted), elf-pavlik, bblfish, eprodrom, tantek, Tsyesika (muted), Ann, cwebber2, wilkie
17:27:17 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, elf-pavlik, jasnell, eprodrom, AnnB, rhiaro, tantek, cwebber2, stevenroose, bblfish, ben_thatmustbeme, sandro, Tsyesika, JakeHart, bret, mattl,
17:27:17 ... bigbluehat, wilkie, nickstenn, aaronpk, ElijahLynn, dwhly, Arnaud, Loqi, KevinMarks, wseltzer, trackbot, shepazu
17:27:20 Arnaud: it doesn't have to be done in the call, can be done offline.
17:27:31 ack eprodrom
17:27:35 tantek: to the point about where the issues are being raised... it hasn't been clear that folks are actually using the github issue or looking at issues with the spec issue itself. I raised the issues on the w3c tracker to raise the visibility that there are specific spec issues that ought to be addressed
17:27:55 I'd much rather be dealing with specific spec issues than continually discussing process
17:28:07 jasnell, if you want you can add specific github issues to telcon agendas. no need to go through tracker overhead.
17:28:13 so far, we've spent 30 minutes talking largely about process
17:28:14 +1 tantek
17:28:18 eprodrom: when do issues and actions factor into our acceptance?
17:28:29 jasnell, I'm trying to make less process work for you :/
17:28:30 Arnaud: we have to document when we are ready to go to the next step
17:28:33 we have agenda wiki page where we can link to gh issues
17:28:55 I'd love it if we could talk about the specific issues now
17:28:59 Arnaud: We need to show our issues as being all closed when we go to candidate recommendation
17:29:28 we should reject as invalid any raised issue that we deem to be lacking sufficient information to understand / process (e.g. lacking links to specific part of spec, or specific example, etc.)
17:29:32 Arnaud: Much of this has to do with documenting that we've done our homework
17:29:36 hopefully that will encourage raising of more well documented issues
17:29:48 Arnaud: but it can be on Github or W3C Tracker
17:29:59 we should not duplicate github issues into tracker
17:30:01 Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=83241&oldid=83240
17:30:18 q?
17:30:19 Arnaud: we should document on the wiki that issues should go into Github
17:30:22 spec already links to where its issues are tracked!
17:30:32 ack jasnell
17:30:56 +1
17:30:59 Sounds good
17:31:05 +1
17:31:07 +1
17:31:22 issue-18?
17:31:22 issue-18 -- We need to know if there are any other products in this space and if there are any dependencies between ldp and opensocial planned in the future? -- raised
17:31:22 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/18
17:31:40 jasnell: reviewing issue 18, not sure there's value. It's rather vague.
17:31:49 I would assume not if opensocial isn't really happneing anymore
17:31:52 Arnaud: hhalpin has an action to clarify issue 18
17:32:03 issue-19?
17:32:03 issue-19 -- WG communication channel explosion -- raised
17:32:03 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/19
17:32:05 Erik not on a call
17:32:12 which one?
17:32:28 jasnell: issue-20 on text sequences: no existing implementations are doing it, no user stories require it
17:32:29 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-19, out of scope
17:32:36 -1 Erik not on a call
17:32:40 issue-20
17:32:40 issue-20 -- Represent Collections using JSON Text Sequences (RFC 7464) -- raised
17:32:40 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/20
17:32:41 s/Close/Reject
17:32:44 -1 Erik not on a call
17:32:45 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-20, out of scope
17:33:02 suggest we reject 18 due to non-participation of open social people
17:33:13 +1 on rejecting issue-20
17:33:38 +1 on accepting (opening) issue-22
17:33:41 jasnell: issue-22 is very general
17:33:50 issue-22
17:33:50 issue-22 -- Need to get data on implementor interest on specific features of the as spec -- raised
17:33:50 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/22
17:34:02 this is the larger problem of scope / size / feature set of AS
17:34:10 or harry during F2F
17:34:22 +1 to reject 22
17:35:15 tantek: This issue is about what we should put at-risk
17:35:24 q?
17:35:26 q+
17:36:02 tantek: I'm trying to slim down the spec so we can get it accepted
17:36:03 ack eprodrom
17:36:07 +1 issue-22 becomes ACTION on tantek :)
17:36:13 I think we deal with the issue best by looking a specific items
17:36:16 lol elf-pavlik
17:36:41 +1 to reject issue 22 for lack of description!
17:36:42 q+ if processors are only doing general mapping, then we should drop specific actions
17:36:54 q+ to say if processors are only doing general mapping, then we should drop specific actions
17:37:10