# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

* Date: 2024-05-29T14:00:00Z
* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
* Chat: https://matrix.to/#/#solid_specification:gitter.im
* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
* Status: see https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/658

## Present
* [Michiel de Jong](https://michielbdejong.com)
* Sungpil Shin (ETRI)
* [Virginia Balseiro](https://virginiabalseiro.com/#me)
* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
* Jesse Wright
* Hadrian Zbarcea
* [Rahul Gupta](https://cxres.pages.dev/profile#i)
* Ali
* Aaron Coburn
* Tim Berners-Lee
* [Ted Thibodeau](https://github.com/TallTed/) (he/him) ([OpenLink Software](https://www.openlinksw.com/))
* Maxime Lecoq-Gaillard
* [Pierre-Antoine Champin](https://champin.net/#pa)

## Announcements

### Meeting Guidelines
* [W3C Solid Community Group Calendar](https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/solid/calendar).
* [W3C Solid Community Group Meeting Guidelines](https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/meetings/README.md).
* No audio or video recording, or automated transcripts without consent. Meetings are transcribed and made public. If consent is withheld by anyone, recording/retention must not occur.
* Join queue to talk.
* Topics can be proposed at the bottom of the agenda to be discussed as time allows. Make it known if a topic is urgent or cannot be postponed.

### Participation and Code of Conduct
* [Join the W3C Solid Community Group](https://www.w3.org/community/solid/join), [W3C Account Request](http://www.w3.org/accounts/request), [W3C Community Contributor License Agreement](https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/).
* [Solid Code of Conduct](https://github.com/solid/process/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md), [Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/)
* Operating principle for effective participation is to allow access across disabilities, across country borders, and across time. Feedback on tooling and meeting timing is welcome.
* If this is your first time, welcome! please introduce yourself.

### Scribes
* Virginia
* elf Pavlik

### Introductions

* Ali (via Jitsi chat):
> Hi all,
>
> I am Ali Siragedien
> From Warsaw Poland
>
> I met some of you during the Solid Symposium in Leuven
>
> I canot talk now
>
> I will be just listening

---

## Topics

### Solid CG meeting at TPAC

* VB: We need to request one (or more) timeslots before June 10th. These are the options (times are expressed in local time to TPAC, which this year will be Anaheim, CA, USA, so UTC-7 hours if I am correct):

Monday 23 September: 09:00 - 10:30 (16:00 - 17:30 UTC)
Monday 23 September: 11:00 - 12:30 (18:00 - 19:30 UTC)
Monday 23 September: 14:00 - 16:00 (21:00 - 23:00 UTC)
Monday 23 September: 16:30 - 18:00 (23:30 - 01:00 UTC on 24 September)
Tuesday 24 September: 09:00 - 10:30 (16:00 - 17:30 UTC)
Tuesday 24 September: 11:00 - 12:30 (18:00 - 19:30 UTC)
Tuesday 24 September: 14:00 - 16:00 (21:00 - 23:00 UTC)
Tuesday 24 September: 16:30 - 18:00 (23:30 - 01:00 UTC on 25 September)
Thursday 26 September: 09:00 - 10:30 (16:00 - 17:30 UTC)
Thursday 26 September: 11:00 - 12:30 (18:00 - 19:30 UTC)
Thursday 26 September: 14:00 - 16:00 (21:00 - 23:00 UTC)
Thursday 26 September: 16:30 - 18:00 (23:30 - 01:00 UTC on 27 September)
Friday 27 September: 09:00 - 10:30 (16:00 - 17:30 UTC)
Friday 27 September: 11:00 - 12:30 (18:00 - 19:30 UTC)
Friday 27 September: 14:00 - 16:00 (21:00 - 23:00 UTC)
Friday 27 September: 16:30 - 18:00 (23:30 - 01:00 UTC on 28 September)

* VB: We should consider potential conflicts with other meetings people want to attend; see draft schedule: https://www.w3.org/2024/05/tpac2024-schedule-20240523.html
* VB: Duration is 90 minutes to 2 hours.
* VB: We also have the option of having a joint meeting with another group if we wish.
* VB: We need to provide an approximate number of in-person attendees. Who will be attending?
* MdJ: Is anybody going in person?
* VB: Yes, I need information if someone is going in person. The aproximate number.
* AC: I may go; too far out for me to know.
* TBL: I don't plan to go. I will be going to IETF meeting in Canada.
* MdJ: If there is nobody going, there is no reason to have a meeting.
* TBL: We could schedule introduction to solid for other people.
* HZ: There may be high attendance but it is hard to plan. Last time the room was full.
* VB: We need to provide a tentative number of attendees. So far, it seems like no-one is going.
* HZ: We should schedule a meeting
* VB: How do we agree on time? Should we use a poll?
* MdJ: If no one is going, it may not matter.
* VB: Yes, it does matter for people who want to join online. Also conflicts with other meetings people might want to join.
* HZ: Being west coast, there is a big time difference
* AC: You will have higher attendance if it is early in the week. On Friday, many peole have already left.
* eP: I think we need to first find out who is going in person; then they can take responsibility of setting everything up.
* VB: We can ask PAC if he plans to go. Should we try to pick a time, Tue 9am maybe?
* RG: For India, the timezone diff is even worse.

ACTION: VB to respond to request with earliest time on Tuesday.

* PAC: will join soon, but my previous meeting is taking longer than expected, sorry.
* eP: Survey for FedCM, they might be interested in joining or having a joint meeting.
* MdJ: Aaron Parecki made [IndieWeb tutorial for IndieAuth](https://indieweb.org/FedCM_for_IndieAuth)

ACTION: eP to get in touch with FedCM and see if they want a joint meeting at TPAC.

* PAC: I'm going to TPAC and have a number of WGs meeting to attend. I would like to meet with Solid CG given no time conflicts.

### CG-DRAFT PRs

* [Add TR/2024/protocol-20240512](https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/651) for Solid Protocol CG-DRAFT 0.11.0.
* [Add TR/2024/wac-20250512](https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/652) for WAC CG-DRAFT 1.0.0.
* [Add TR/2024/notifications-protocol-20240512](https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/654) for Solid Notifications Protocol CG-DRAFT v0.3.0.
* [Update ED/qa](https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/655) for CG-DRAFT v0.3.0.
* [Update webid-profile](https://github.com/solid/webid-profile/pull/117) for CG-DRAFT v1.0.0.
* SC: Please see PROPOSALs 1-2 in some of those comments, essentially about synching with editorial changes before publishing, with some exceptions like [PR 660](https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/660) (see next topic) for [PR 651](https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/651). It shouldn't be seen as a blocker for releasing Solid Protocol CG-DRAFT though.
* VB: most [open PRs](https://github.com/solid/specification/pulls/) have no objections, expect one on WebID Profile. [PR 660](https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/660) needs more reviews.

### Clarify requests including content; container creation; omit slug targetting auxiliary
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/660

* SC: I think this should be released with CG-DRAFT v0.11.0. Please review.
* RG: Sarven and I are still discussion various details, it may be good to review it after we find initial agreement.
* VB: People can already contribute to the conversation

### WebID Profile spec
* eP: Some parts touching on oidc should be defined whether it will go to WG or not.
* VB: Not going to WG.
* eP: Common reqs about protecting sensitive issues. We should have a STM about these topics.
* eP: I'm writing an extension for CSS to create WebID documents outside of storage
* https://github.com/orgs/solid/projects/16/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=65170443

### i18n and n11n of resource identifiers
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/575

* VB: Calling for implementation feedback as it helps with incubation; please link to your implementation.
* VB: Postpone until we have more implementation feedback and/or WT / SC in the call.

### Informal objection to reclassifying CG documents
* RG: Looking at [W3C definition](https://www.w3.org/standards/types/#reports) for different kinds of documents. Looks at odds with what Ian told us two weeks ago. {reads definitions}
* RG: Says document is produced by a W3C group, not a CG or WG. CG report is an end product produced by CG/BG. Means it has received patent agreement but is not final. Calling the product we are iterating on a "community report" is different from what we are doing. We should call it a draft CG report.
* RG: He suggested to remove W3C branding from our documents. This removal of branding is just because only W3C WG ???
* MdJ: CG cannot pretend that what they produced was produced by the W3C.
* RG: WG cannot pretend that either. W3C does not endorse WG EDs.
* MdJ: Big difference between what CGs and WGs can do.
* eP: {shows screen}
* eP: Is the problem with "Editor's Draft" ("ED")?
* RG: I disagree with changing ED to CG-DRAFT because we are not doing a final report.
* eP: What is it not matching? Is it the Editor's Draft?
* RG: Solid protocol should be an editor's draft, not a CG-DRAFT.
* PAC: I agree the text says ED can be produced by any group. ED template is a recommendation, has W3C logo and everything. That's what Ian wanted to avoid. Patent licensing commitment is agreed by any W3C CG participant. There is nothing special to do to publish a CG-DRAFT. Solid CG is special because documents were produced by the CG. We have some automatic controls when people make a contribution while not a member. Solid CG does not have this. It might be questioned whether tcontributions are coming from outside the CG, which is why Ian recommended to use either. On a daily basis, we call it an ED, because it's the last version pushed. It's supposed to work that way.
* RG: I mostly agree, but if it's in-between version numbers, is that ED or CG-DRAFT?
* PAC: That can be a CG-DRAFT report. Any intermediate version can be a CG-DRAFT.
* eP: Solid CG is not doing things like normal CGs. Is there anything we can do to become a normal CG?
* PAC: That's where my legal knowledge reaches its limits. This was one of the things Ian mentioned. Reaching out to old known contributors; checking that they are members of the CG; if they are not, reaching out and getting them to join the CG...
* MdJ: If they were member while contributing, it also counts. Some people left CG after contributing.
* VB: You mentioned that there could be some automations. They would require GitHub account to be connected to W3C account.
* PAC: One can register GitHub accounts in their W3C account; not sure if we can use W3C bots in solid org.
* VB: That's something we could look into.
* eP: Can we figure out if we can use those bots?
* PAC: I will ask.

ACTION: PAC to ask about automation tools for checking PRs are coming from CG members.

### Add advisement property and class
URL: https://github.com/solid/vocab/pull/91

* SC: Solid QA related. And perhaps also of general interest to folks interested in Linked Data stuff.

### IETF plans for Vancouver or Dublin
* TBL: Who is going to IETF?
* MdJ: I plan to go to the Dublin one.
* RG: I haven't planned. If I get funding, I might consider Dublin.
* TBL: Maybe we should organize a BoF on Solid.
* RG: Have you considered putting a proposal to ???

### repo name / URL change, "Security Best Practices" -> "Security Considerations"

* VB: We decided to change the title. Should we change the repo name as well?
* eP: solid/security-considerations
* PAC: Repo renaming automatically sets up GH repo redirection, but not between github pages