W3C Solid Community Group: Solid Editors

--- tags: Solid --- # W3C Solid Community Group: Solid Editors * Date: 2021-09-29T13:00:00Z * Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-specification * Chat: https://gitter.im/solid/specification * Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification ## Present * [Sarven Capadisli](https://csarven.ca/#i) * Kjetil Kjernsmo * Justin B * Henry Story * ericP * Tim Berners-Lee --- ## Announcements ### Meeting Recordings and Transcripts * 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. * Use panel chat and repository. Queue in call to talk. ### 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/master/code-of-conduct.md), [Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/) * If this is your first time, welcome! please introduce yourself. ### Scribes * name * ### Introductions * name: text * --- ## Topics ### Editors Team to move/copy notifications related issues to the notifications-panel URL: https://github.com/solid/notifications-panel/issues/4 * SC: I moved stuff from solid/specification which are essential for the notification-panel. We can move more when we come across them. ### Process * KK: We should revisit process. * TB: is Solid ecosystem like... current solid is like release version. * ... We're behind on websockets. Would like to see kanban sort of system to see how things are breaking (fast).. and anything else.. rush towards draft.. and leave low-priority state. * KK: The process we put in place in June was like .. * TB: * KK: SC and I are experiencing too much stuff all across that we need to isolate work. The intention of this month is what we work on.. and it is timeboxed. the problem is that we haven' tbeen able to work that way.. there are so many things that are w are bombarded wiht.. and key aspect of scrum that we haven' tbee able to put in place.. so tha twe can isolate ourselves from all waves from everywher eto work better... * ... with scrum, you're protected from distractions by management. we need to prioritise and triage.. we did put in place in the process.. and stick to it.. whatever agile way you're working.. and that's what ive intended last wednesday.. the nomination period.. thjat is just the begining of the week.. something something intention. * HS: Is the problem not here that you need to communicate with a few different groups? In scrum one can work on a well defined problem isolated, but in a spec, one needs to work with others outside the group. * .. you need a different type of org system. one might say they get an answer in two months.. and so how do you push people to get a quick answer.. from a pile of things they hae to do.. so it is difficult.. i odnt have an answer.. * TB: we can use Solid tracker.. have more than one categorisation. * KK: We need a kanban board but not particular engaged there... there is a second phase where we can't reach consensus.. and have more knowledge phase.. and UCR phase.. for more in depth.. if we get passed that.. then we have rough consensus.. and that's endpoint of onsensus phase.. then the kanban thing can take that and put it in the drafting phase.. in which we write the text for the spec and tests. i haven't done a review there because that happens mechanically on github so next phase is done. * SC: I'd like a specifc Topic Question to focus this discussion.. this is a bit too random. * HS: if the kanban works for you. .okay. we havne't used that in the * TB: it hasn't been too useful to release the spec.. * SC: but we have made progress. * KK: it hasn't been helpful .. but the problem is a different one.. the problem is.. all th eother htings we need to od.. if you loook at these issues.. the things we prioritised.. they ahve comments sitting for a long time. that's because we are not working but because there are so many other htings.. essential to all agile stuff to isolate the team from all those distractions.. as henry says because we do need to consult to others but we shouldn't wait.. but plow forward.. and it is difficult to prioritise .. and trying hard not to respond ot everything.. to your point tim., we decide what goes on the board. let's concentrate on 1.0 out.. * JB: i agree.. more focus on less things.. timebox. 99% of the time popoulation gets things done that way.. my q+ was on community engagement and priority.. what are we spending our time. if we have focused time on less things.. and work through stuff but it should also be about most important things.. not necessarily to use but to community of implementers.. and users of that stuff. topic for later: we agreed last week for implementer feedback session.. thjat asisde we prioritise the owk rbased on what peopel need. to tim's point.. when you operate something like a product that's what you do.. * TB: in principle you're right but i disagree.. in practice it need sot be driven by.. impact it has on the word.. value to users.. secondly: developers.. meanwhile, .. asking people what they need is for later. for now, what we need is something from 18 months ago... i'll take input from anyone in their .. peopel running solidos for years.. and that puts things at risk.. we have to change websockets because of security concerns.. and authentication.. we had perfectly working platform.. from the point of solid 1.0 nss and css.. and ess should match that. the whole spec just bleeding into places.. we had we had authn spec. method change because of security concerns.. and we put in. if we dond't get websockets soon.. the ecosystem is really important.. they actually sytart using solidos.. because they get an account on solidcommunity.net etc.. yea for the future but for the bleeding spec.. we need to have better prirorities.. and not distracted from discussions.. * KK: that means to me.. we should nominate things that need to be done for the next phase.. we do that.. isolat eourselves from all the other hings that nede sto be done.. that has been my agenda.. but illusion? of other things pushed on us.. we're running in circles. * JB: I'm just point out that wherever the priortisation is comign from.. we have that problem that we need to work on.. i don't think anyone disagrees with what's at the top of the list.. and we need to prioritise after htem.. and not something we need to wait awhile to work on them.. it is a problem.. the two items.. our current targets. * SC: what's everyone working on? we have 8 editors.. need everyone assigned to stuff. * TB: where is websockets * SC: it is now on notifications-panel plate. * TB: we should take it back. * SC: Nopes. No one in editors is working on it and notifications-panel picked it up.. unless this group wants to work on it.. it is there. * TB: hows solid-oidc doing. * SC: good. on path to ~fwwd * TB: concern is with code.. * JB: suggestion: we need to record and maintain the top priorities from editors.. there is a bit of a gap with what's recorded and what's going on. what's/where is the work happening (which repo..).. look in one place. * EP: floated distributed workload: triyng to figur eou t how to mehcnanically help.. since sc and kk are underwater.. so it makes it difficult .. there ar emultiple possibilities.. and they're touched by multiple parts of the psec.. eg. choice between whether or not you get 404s vs 401s.. that shows up in multiple place.s. so was wondering.. those parts of prolems are hodling people up.. and is there some markup thing we can use.. some sort of a way to have different proposals.. that the spec can capture multiple coherent current proposals.. and know where to contribute.. instead of trying to figure out.. * TB: if you need to figure out 404/401? i hope that stuff changes very rarely.. * EP: are there places where some coherent places touching multiple places.. i care about this because i might be slowed down by something.. * TB: if you're using 401/404 as an example, understood, but i hope that specific example is resolved because it's foundational. * ... * SC: can you make a concrete proposal so that we can "exit" this topic? * KK: easy/difficult answer: usefulness of agile proces.s. you have these big problems.. easy answer is: the things we need to work on .. this group puts on monthly milestone.. we should put putting things on milestone.. and focus effort there.. and don't need to go wander around. we don't need ot consult the community.. we get it done. don't need to chang ethe process. prioritise ... work on it.. PROPOSAL: Editors to assign themselves on nominated issues that's agreed to go into a milestone. RESOLVED - no apparent discent * SC: _Looks at the room and acknowledges general agreement._ * KK: the things I've put in nomination because of the test suite.. and then there is.. sparql stuff. * SC: move milestone/4 issues to milestone/5 ACTION: SC to move m/4 to m/5 * KK: possible to schedule a meeting to put things in milestone/5.. hopefully we odn't have to wait another week. * JB: I think it is important to get implementerchannel feedback. to setup a first session of that.. it is short. we might not learn anything new.. maybe some new things.. but will probabl ylearn stuff.. it is additional source. * TB: what is it.. * JB: just a desc. to community implementers.. what everyone gets. to get better info on prioritisation. * .. i think we can learn quite a bit from first session. not trying to be too prescriptive. * TB: ### Can we meet F2F? * KK: Prague seems like a possible location for everyone: https://www.visitczechrepublic.com/en-US/926179fc-1601-4cf8-b201-0b33b3878f08/page/covid-19 ### Milestone: Current Month URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/milestone/4 ### Specify container description URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/227 * SC: We've come almost full circle... having no performance diff about the approaches on record - whether it was obvious or not - was super important! Now what? ### Clarify the notion and mechanisms for server-managed information URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/177 ### Implementer Feedback Meeting URL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cJQhvXPKYUurTh481tTbq9OTHIzRfWWdlYKusPaEy6I/edit?usp=sharing ### Nominated URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22status%3A+Nominated%22 * SC: Let's pick the essentials for next month / for Protocol "1.0" (~WD or ~CR if we are going to actively call for implementations and test reports, iff the tests are ready) ### Milestone: Next Month URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/milestone/5 ### Topic URL: * name: text * PROPOSAL: text * name: +1,0,-1 * RESOLUTION: text ACTION: text