jonas’vanitasvitae, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/530 related
vanitasvitaeThanks, I'll see if I can get something workable.
SeveHey guys, I'll be on mobile today unfortunately, may be travelling at meeting time.
MattJNoted, thanks :)
MattJI'll be around in just a moment
GuusI'm around now.
ralphm0. Welcome + Agenda
ralphmSo it seems we have a full house (in a moment)
ralphmAny additional items for the agenda?
MattJOk, here I am
GuusI don't have additional items.
SeveNone for today
MattJNone from me
ralphmWho will take them?
Sevenyco, do you have comments? As I see you are writing
nycoIm' not writing :)
MattJI think that might be a bug, he's been typing for weeks for me
SeveAhh, ok haha
nycoweeks? that's a novel! :)
MattJI can't wait!
nyconot sure of the qulity
nycook, here it is:
nycohow do you like it?
ralphmpointing to the current agenda item.
ralphmI understand there was a discussion on this topic last week, initiated by Link Mauve .
Guus2 weeks ago
ralphmOh, right, I didn't check the date on the meeting notes.
Guuswe're missing last weeks minutes, so you found the 'last'.
MattJUh-oh, was that me?
ralphmSo I'm not sure if it was discussed last week (no minutes), and hope somebody will still do minutes this week.
SeveYes, long discussion! But interesting as well
GuusWE skipped the DOAP subject last week.
GuusWe skipped the DOAP subject last week.
GuusThe short of it: I seem to stand alone in my reservations.
nycoI'd like that we move forward and try
ralphmCan somebody summarize the pros and cons?
MattJThe DOAP week we spent the whole meeting discussing DOAP, and nothing else got done, so we tried to spend last week catching up
ralphmI asssume the goal is having a standard machine readable listing of projects?
MattJralphm, that is a big goal, yes. But having machine-readable data about projects allows a bunch of interesting things besides that
ralphmMattJ: you can repent by doing minutes this week, too.
MattJBut nothing concrete - I think it's enough to aim for the listing
MattJBut e.g. being able to pull up a XEP and see a list of implementations would be handy for a different audience
nycoLink Mauve can explain
MattJI think Link Mauve might be away, unless I'm mistaken
ralphmCan we do things incrementally?
MattJralphm, that's basically what this PR is... very much so
MattJIt adds some scripts to our repo that ingest the DOAP data provided by projects, and stores that info in a place that is accessible to our site generator
MattJIt doesn't execute the scripts and it doesn't modify the site itself
ralphmI assume the rest of the discussion was on what kind of data could be in the records.
MattJGuus had a fair few objections to the idea, I think debating those took up a chunk of the time
GuusLet's not re-hash all of that. Please just read the minutes and the logs
GuusLet's not use valuable meeting time retelling what we discussed in other meetings.
Guusmaybe postpone this until everyone is caught up?
ralphmGuus: I did read that, but I am trying to see what we need to actually go forward.
ralphm(I indeed did not read all of the log)
GuusOther options than merge or reject the PR?
MattJAre there any other options?
SeveNot for now
SeveBut the whole process and adopting it
GuusMy concerns are summarized by two main points: a) I don't like us listing more details on the XSF website and b) If we want to do it, is DOAP the best tool (people told me last time: yes).
SeveWhich I do like
MattJMerging the PR is pretty much just a statement that we're willing to begin experimenting with this approach
SeveWhich I do like, to start experimenting with it
MattJa) is irrelevant for this PR then, because it doesn't modify what is displayed on the website
ralphmSo accepting the PR does not imply having more details, right?
MattJEven if we didn't add anything visually, it would at least allow some automation of what we currently display
GuusIf it's not for the benefit of our website, it shouldn't be merged in the repo for our website, surely?
SeveI think we should decide on going for DOAP or not, before that PR, as Guus mentions it does not make sense otherwise
MattJGuus's objection relates to adding more data - I'm saying that DOAP is an improvement even if we never add more data than what we currently display
ralphmSo we can just say: we only do these bits of information and not others.
MattJ(however I personally would probably be in favour of adding more data in the future)
MattJOf course, yes
ralphmAnd then later discuss possibly expanding with new fields
GuusWe're not going to do DOAP only to replace the current listing of project name and link 🙂
MattJGuus, it shifts the burden of updating listings from us to project maintainers, which I think is an improvement in itself
GuusI appreciate an attempt to easing us into DOAP, but its goal is to do a lot more than to re-implement what we have now.
MattJObservation: projects are already publishing DOAP. We can choose to use it, or we can continue to maintain our site listing by hand
GuusFor just 'name' and 'website' - I understand the correctness of your argument, I'm not thinking that it's a pragmatic improvement to managing what we already have 🙂
GuusSome project are, yes. Others are not. One thing that I touched on last time is that by using DOAP, we're raising the barrier for all projects to be included. It's yet another ..... darn, we're rehashing arguments again.
Guuslet's just vote on this.
ralphmI think with DOAP depending on RDF, it could self-resolve to additional data at the owner's site with some predicate.
ralphmVote on a tabled motion to use DOAP for our software listings (PR 594)
GuusWe don't need to discuss anythign to consensus before putting it to a vote, and I'll not be able to change your minds 🙂
nycowait, what does thta mean?
Guuswhat does what mean?
ralphm+1 means that the PR is accepted
nycoVote on a tabled motion to use DOAP for our software listings (PR 594)
MattJI'm +1 on accepting the PR
MattJnyco, depends where you come from :)
nyco"merge PR" => that, I understand :)
ralphmnyco: right that was stupidly worded
nycoMattJ what do you mean?
GuusI think that the verb 'to table' is confusing too. 🙂