# Solid Project: Solid Team

* Date: 2023-05-03T15:00:00Z
* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-team
* Chat: https://gitter.com/solid/team
* Repository: https://github.com/solid/team

## Present
* Jackson Morgan
* Osmar Olivo
* [Virginia Balseiro](https://virginiabalseiro.com/#me)
* Jeff Zucker
* Tim BL
* Alain Bourgeois
* Kyra Assaad
* [Sarven Capadisli](https://csarven.ca/#i)
*
---

## 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.
* Join queue to talk.

### Participation and Code of Conduct
* [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

### Introductions
* name: text

---

## Topics

### Proposal: Update/Create a better experience for newcomers
URL: https://github.com/solid/team/issues/35#issuecomment-1506073211

* JM: In my notes from last time it says Oz will create this as a separate topic.
* OO: I forgot. The topic is the role of Community manager and whether it should continue.
* OO: About this topic. We said we needed to clean up the description because it is unclear whether we are talking about developer experience or what. We assumed this was what JZ meant but weren't sure.
* JM: Do we want to break it into developer experience and other topics for non-technical newcomers, people in the community getting involved with spec work, etc.
* JZ: Yes, but I did not submit this originally but you did. Not sure everyone is aware but Timea and Jon Wilson have created a repo for tutorials and onboarding materials so there is work starting in this direction and I think we should follow up.
* JM" In terms of scope discussion, is this an action item the solid team should take under its jurdisdiction? I think yes. Could be supporting Timea/Jon or funding.
* OO: It's easy to say support but it is too big. I need to see more details. Are we setting goals or priorities? Is there anythign we will be doing as a team to improve this or just supporting what other members of the community are doing?
* JM: The way I see it it's us as a team coming together to say these are things we would be willing to use resources/funding for once we achieve that. This will help us inform how we engage with Web Foundation or others. To apply for a grant we need to agree on the things we want to do.
* OO: I need more clarity before saying yes/no. If we decide this is important to us we will do some things.
* JM: I nthe proposal it says create a guide similar to w3schools.
* OO: That is more focused on developers onboarding to Solid vs the community.
* AB: The fact we're pushing for community manager goes along the same lines. Investing time/resources to support that.
* VB: This is a good goal. We should definitely do but if we are going to commit to for any particular purpose - taking funding and committing to it because I don't think we have the bandwidth as a group. If we can come up with a plan - how to do this.. and who.. with time, and tasks, then okay. We can make a decision around that. If we allocate resources we need to be sure to deliver.
* OO: Agree with VB. Need a detailed project plan. Commiting to something without knowing what it entails doesn't feel right.
* JZ: I would like to differentiate between the different ideas of what defining the scope means. If it means we're allocating people to work on something, then no we don't have those resources. But these are things we would like to see done in our community. Maybe we need to differentiate at which level we are saying those things.
* JM: I think that a lot of the confusion is what the purpose of this exercise is. This is essentially saying we need to come to an agreement of what the jurisdiction of the team is. Saying we need to have a full plan to decide is putting the cart before the horse.
* SC: It could be within the scope but as far of responsibility could spread out into the app-development group. People that are active in developemnt are more fit to hands-on write about how to make things easier. We could reach out to them to see if we have what's needed. It's not the community manager's role to take that on. Sounds like we'd be bringing a new role to do that part.
* VB: I definitely agree that it's under this jurisdiction. It was just confusing for me when we're applying to funding. When it comes to opening up to the community that would be a part of the detailed plan, it would fall under this jurisdiction of this team to delate that.
* OO: What you said earlier needs to be written into the proposal because that is a very important clarification: we are not setting goals but deciding what is under the jurisdiction of the team.

ACTION: JM to adjust top of scope of team ticket to reflect this.

* TBL: This team decides what it will spend time doing it or handing over to somebody else. Hopefully lot will be done by us but a lot will be done by someone else. Useful to have an idea of all the things neededfor Solid to succeed.
* JM: If there are other people working on ??? that is not a violation of the jurisdiction of this team, just need to acknowlege and integrate.
* JM: Given we understand that scope = jurisdiction of the team, are there any objections to adopting this as a topic?
* JM: No objections.

### Proposal: develop stronger diversity outreach
URL: https://github.com/solid/team/issues/35#issuecomment-1506089824

* JZ: this eneds to be something coming from the team. We need to consider who is in the community and who is not, and the needs of all people not those here now. We all agree we want that to happen. I'm mentoring on this homelessness project and would like to integrate this with ??? If we have resources this would be a good area to spend resources on.
* JM: In the proposal you proposed this be done through internships, hackathons, online meetings, symposiums, mentoring.
* JZ: It's a wishlist of thigns we could do. For example, with hackathons I'd like to explore how to use them to strengthen small projects and pull in people who wouldn't otherwsie. Internships if we have money would be avaluable.
* JM: Objections?
* JM: No objections.
* OO: Diversity is very much in the jurisdiction. After we decide which of these topics are within scope we need to go in and make a detail plan so we can decide what to do with them.

### Proposal: Content Pass on SolidProject.org
URL: https://github.com/solid/team/issues/35#issuecomment-1508810299
* OO: This was me not understanding the assignment. Rather than raising whether it's in scope. We have taken a pass (a group of creators). At some point we could have some of those creators walk us through all the content in SolidProject.org and see which pages need to be dropped, updated, what's missing. Figure out how we can tackle that. Inrupt would be willing to give Kay, Kyra time to make improvements.
* OO: Let's get to the rest of the agenda and then if there's time Kyra can walk us through.

### Proposed Solid World/Newsletter Instructions
URL: https://github.com/solid/process/pull/321
* JM: Based on previous discussion I made this PR. Part of the point of this was brought up because in the past people who are not member of the team manage this process. Hadrian started the process to apply to be a member of the team.
* OO: I think we have an informal process.
* JM: Tim had to approve.
* VB: I can update process.
* OO: First we need to agree on one.
* TBL: I propose that PR can be merged and Hadrian can become a member.
* JM: Fine with that.
* SC: What is the proposal?
* OO: JM mentioned Hadrian requested to join.
* TBL: Proposal is that PR to be accepted and merged.
* SC: AFAIK Director approves. I think PR is the easiest way to get Director's attention.
* JM: Process talks about Solid Editors.
* OO: We need to formally agree on the process so we can write it down somewhere.
* SC: For some of the roles it is that. We should make it consistent for all roles.

ACTION: Virginia to update Solid process with procedure to request joining the Team.

* TBL: Worth clarifying.
* JM: Would people be fine if I nuke the entire process folder and build a new process for the new scope? Won't be officially created unless the team adopts it. A lot of the things will carry over. In the proposal that I have given here I created two new roles: SW organizers and newsletter organizers. Those can be appointed by majority vote of the team, like other roles.
* SC: Some comments: I don't think ??? should itnroduce errors. You're deleting stuff but you can't just remove them as things are referring to them. Don't just delete stuff because others expect those to be there. Happy to update references to things that can be deleted but don't go ahead without checking.
* SC: There's a whole lot of stuff in the process that is not updated and we can spend a couple meetings on that alone. If you nuke/rewrite I don't know if it's a good exercise. Solid Editors is completely meaningless within solid project. Anything pertaining to CG or specs should not be under the purview of the Solid Team because there's a proper org CG/WG that has its own organization and process. There are other examples of things that need discussion.
* TBL: I see the Solid org as being the same as the CG works. We don't have a process to ???
* VB: Why do we need these two rolls, because it seems to me that these are things that creators do. It's like having another role for every specific task that we carry out, and these are specific projects.
* JM: Because it doesn't necessarily need to be the same people but it could. I'd be in favor of getting rid of the entire idea of roles and just have the Solid Team. Instead of categorizing people as creators/admins, we have the things within scope and the people taking lead on it.
* OO: I recommend maybe we have an action item to take a pass on the existing process and roles and make a proposal that we can review. Useful to have it written down for us to make a decision.
* SC: About example editorial in process, there's enough material there for the group to work with. Members showing up or being up to speed with the work. There's an intention of what editors were supposed to be doing but it didn't carry forward. That is not to do with the process but more about contributions. There's a conflation with contributions in community group and having strange roles on the projec.t Going forward we won't need the editors. I'm happy to participate as a creator but I don't think ???
* TBL: When you sign up you say you want to be a creator, people's talents are quite different. We trust people with tasks. Having roles is similar to having departments. Hopefully more flexible. Just removing everything means we don't have structured roles. This to-do list that creators have, and those that admins have, are separate. It could be in both groups or one group.
* JM: We have gone off topic but to sum up some actions:

ACTION: JM to make a proposal on process revision to eliminate roles

* JM: Spec editing is not in the scope of the Solid Team. That's the scope of the CG.
* SC: Anything to do with spec work is in the CG/WG, does not need to be in Solid Team scope.
* TBL: before the Solid team the CG was organized by ??? Solid protocol will be done by WG but other things will not be done by WG, CG still needs to do.
* SC: There's a list of specs in the CG. Only thing in WG will be Solid protocol.
* OO: For next meeting we should discuss ??? of the editors in the Solid Team.

ACTION: JM to add editors to scope discussion

* JM: Next meeting we should focus on the final proposals we have inside this. Based on this scope I will create a proposal for the new process. We can do the special meeting in two weeks.

### Proposal: solidproject.org on Solid server
URL: https://github.com/solid/team/issues/35#issuecomment-1543691049

### Proposal: third-party social media accounts
URL: https://github.com/solid/team/issues/35#issuecomment-1543712055

### Solid Project.org Analysis