SocialCG/2019-09-28/minutes
< SocialCG | 2019-09-28
<cwebber2> ========== MEETING LOGGING STARTS ==========
<cwebber2> present+
<melody> present+
<rigelk> present+
<nightpool[m]> present+
<cwebber2> SCRIBENICK: rigelk [11:05]
<cwebber2> TOPIC: Evergreen Recs (reminder, voting happening in following
meeting) https://www.w3.org/wiki/Evergreen_Standards
<nightpool[m]> I did!
<nightpool[m]> q+ [11:06]
<cwebber2> q+
<rigelk> cwebber2: first topic is ER recommendation. asking if attendees have
had the chance to read the standards.
<cwebber2> ack nightpool
<rigelk> nightpool: yes, I guess there are a lot of unanswered questions about
the ER process, since the document was primarily written with WG in
mind and not CG. Some points might not apply to us. [11:07]
<rigelk> nightpool: I don't think that changes a lot about the CG editing the
draft as it is. [11:08]
<rigelk> cwebber2: you're right that it is a bit underspecified. We should
talk with the W3C staff if we could formalize the work we're doing -
more than just an Editor's Draft that we keep updating. This is still
something the W3C has never done and is still exploring. [11:10]
<cwebber2> ack cwebber2 [11:11]
<rigelk> cwebber2: regarding patents in particular, the W3C should give some
degree in protection to the CG about patents that they usually give
to WG.
<rigelk> cwebber2: do you think that the protection given to the CG by having
people sign up to the W3C would be sufficient? [11:12]
<rigelk> nightpool: I don't quite understand the difference in protection we
have to a WG. [11:13]
<rigelk> cwebber2: I will reach out to the W3C for details about that.
<cwebber2> ACTION: cwebber2 will reach out to W3C staff to ask details about
what benefits if any (esp around patents) doing ActivityPub as an
evergreen standard would do (and if it's even possible for a CG as
opposed to a WG) [11:14]
<nightpool[m]> +1
<nightpool[m]> My understanding, rigelk (IRC), is that it's very uncommon but
very disastrous when it does happen [11:15]
<cwebber2> TOPIC: socialhub.activitypub.rocks [11:16]
<rigelk> right :/
<nightpool[m]> I know a little bit of the status
<rigelk> cwebber2: I'm not sure what we can do more about
socialhub.activitypub.rocks - right now this cannot make progress
without hellekin who has set it up. [11:17]
<cwebber2> rigelk: some of us need access, myself included, some of the topics
are around what we need to do before going forward. Mostly about
community steps around setting up categories, etc, so when we
launch the forum it doesn't look too empty / bare bones
<cwebber2> rigelk: however I haven't had any news about launching of forum by
hellekin, I could ask
<nightpool[m]> s/need access/have access/ [11:18]
<rigelk> cwebber2: If you could ask, that would be great.
<nightpool[m]> q+
<cwebber2> ack nightpool
<rigelk> I'll do that.
<rigelk> nightpool: I don't think any progress has been done on that list
since the last meeting. [11:19]
<rigelk> nightpool: it would be good if we could check that.
<cwebber2> TOPIC: Issue triage from GitHub
<cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues [11:20]
<rigelk> cwebber2: I haven't had a chance to take a look at issues since the
last meeting.
<nightpool[m]> q+
<cwebber2> ack nightpool
<rigelk> cwebber2: are there any issues that anybody has had the chance to
look over and that someone would be willing to look at?
<cwebber2> q+ to discuss mailing lists [11:21]
<rigelk> nightpool: one is about the mailing list and the fact that it would
overlap with the forum - where is the AP-specific part discussions
going to take place?
<rigelk> nightpool: is the forum for the CG or the AP discussions?
<cwebber2> ack cwebber2 [11:22]
<rigelk> cwebber2: my understanding is that very early in the SocialCG we had
a long discussion about forums and mailing-lists - some didn't like
them and preferred the issue tracker for that matter. [11:23]
<rigelk> cwebber2: the forum is not for the CG at large but for AP before
bringing issue to the CG as appropriate
<nightpool[m]> q+ [11:24]
<melody> q+
<cwebber2> ack nightpool
<rigelk> cwebber2: I haven't heard a lot of clamoring about mailing-list -
should we look at the issue too?
<nightpool[m]> https://github.com/swicg/general/issues/25 [11:25]
<rigelk> nightpool: there was a discussion about this on GitHub - some people
are in favor of that in issue #25
<cwebber2> ack melody
<nightpool[m]> i don't think that captures my point, rigelk (IRC)
<rigelk> sorry :/
<nightpool[m]> What I said was "Some people are in favor of it but nobody was
able to jump in and add the context that we had already
resolved this" [11:26]
<rigelk> thanks - had trouble hearing you clearly
<nightpool[m]> no worries, just wanted to make sure my point was clear
<rigelk> melody: I don't think we need a mailing list
<nightpool[m]> q+ [11:27]
<cwebber2> ack nightpool
<cwebber2> q+
<cwebber2> TOPIC: IRC bot [11:29]
<rigelk> cwebber2: W3C has apparently had infra problems - I can't login and
authenticate properly to the channel to manage the scribe bot. I
don't know who has OP status - aaronpk ?
<rigelk> cwebber2: the alternatives: contact W3C to get OPs (probably a good
idea) - or get a bot in the meantime. Either is still better than
just copy-pasting chat logs. [11:31]
<nightpool> q+ [11:32]
<rigelk> +1 (and I guess also from nightpool?)
<cwebber2> ack nightpool
<rigelk> nightpool: I'm happy to reach out and figure it out [11:33]
<cwebber2> TOPIC: Next meeting scheduling
<cwebber2> PROPOSED: Move next meeting to 2019-10-09 @ [11:34]
<cwebber2> PROPOSED: Move next meeting to 2019-10-09 @ 15:00 UTC [11:35]
<cwebber2> +1
<melody> +1
<rigelk> +1
<nightpool> +0 - I wouldn't be able to make it myself, but I know other people
are in favor
<cwebber2> ack
<rigelk> cwebber2: we can try to set another meeting on the 26th - 2 week from
then [11:36]
<cwebber2> RESOLVED: Move next meeting to 2019-10-09 @ 15:00 UTC
<rigelk> cwebber2: wiki pages are only editable by W3C members - aaronpk
cwebber2 and benjamin goering - that is problematic and we should
find a better solution [11:37]
<cwebber2> rigelk: should we talk about activitypub.rocks and the static site?
[11:38]
<nightpool> ACTION: I can come up with some sort of proposal on the wiki
situation
<rigelk> cwebber2: right now the website requires a setup via Guix and
Scheme. There hasn't been much change since its inception. The
question is: is it worth switching the site? [11:39]
<cwebber2> https://activitypub.rocks/implementation-report/
<rigelk> cwebber2: the advantage was about the implementation reports
procedural implementation. We might want to preserve this page and it
is the more difficult change to implement. [11:40]
<nightpool> q+
<cwebber2> rigelk: regular changes are not so regular, but occasional changes
w/ the socialcg... we have more tools to communicate like the
forum, and we don't have a lot of redirection from the
activitypub.rocks page [11:41]
<cwebber2> rigelk: it's the place people tend to go first to find out the
activitypub spec
<cwebber2> rigelk: being able to edit it once or two months would be useful
<cwebber2> rigelk: more interesting changes to the site could be redirecting
to have more... I've talked about onboarding for new developers, it
could be a place we could do that as well [11:42]
<cwebber2> q+
<cwebber2> ack nightpool
<cwebber2> nightpool: what changes do you want? [11:43]
<cwebber2> rigelk: linking to better documents of how to help people, forum
and tutorials, etc
<cwebber2> ack cwebber2
<nightpool> q+ [11:45]
<cwebber2> ack nightpool
<rigelk> cwebber2: there is also the question of what we want to do about
test.activitypub.rocks.
<cwebber2> https://gitlab.com/dustyweb/activitypub.rocks [11:46]
<rigelk> nightpool: I don't have a clear view of what we need to change to the
site.
<cwebber2> https://gitlab.com/dustyweb/activitypub.rocks/blob/master/haunt.scm
<rigelk> cwebber2: it is not easy to change in its current state. but slight
changes should be easy enough. nightpool, should we put up a list of
things to change to get a proper view of what needs to be done?
[11:47]
<nightpool> q [11:49]
<nightpool> q+
<cwebber2> rigelk: I think that it may be that the forum is a good place for
some of it, though I think the ap.rocks website can provide some
info in a better light
<cwebber2> ack nightpool [11:50]
<rigelk> nightpool: if there is a problem with adding/editing the site, I'm
happy to help with changes to Haunt, I just need a list of changes.
<melody> q+ [11:51]
<rigelk> q+
<cwebber2> ack melody
<nightpool> yeah, absolutely echoing chris here. Onboading is a huge deal and
i want to get better at it, i just don't think those resources
exist for us to link to
<cwebber2> +1 to what melody said [11:52]
<cwebber2> ack rigelk
<rigelk> melody: I think one thing the could help is the onboarding: right now
it is not clear how specs are dependent on each other, so it might be
worth having an onboarding page, especially for developers.
<rigelk> cwebber2: what we need first is the forum, and what we want on
ap.rocks [11:53]
<cwebber2> +1 for showing off ideas for onboarding and letting us evaluable
<cwebber2> evaluate [11:54]
<cwebber2> https://gitlab.com/dustyweb/activitypub.rocks/issues
<cwebber2> ACTION: rigelk will raise an issue about changes to
activitypub.rocks on the activitypub issue tracker [11:55]
<nightpool> +!
<nightpool> +1
<rigelk> cwebber2: with that said, we can close the meeting. [11:56]
<cwebber2> ========== MEETING LOGGING ENDS ==========