---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'Solid Project: Solid Team'

---

# Solid Project: Solid Team

* Date: 2023-06-07T15:00:00Z
* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-team
* Chat: https://gitter.com/solid/team
* Repository: https://github.com/solid/team


## Present
* Jackson Morgan
* [Virginia Balseiro](https://virginiabalseiro.com/#me)
* [Hadrian Zbarcea](https://hadrian.solidcommunity.net/profile/card/#me)
* [Tim BL](https://timbl.inrupt.net/profile/card#me)
* [Sarven Capadisli](https://csarven.ca/#i)
* Jeff Zucker
* Osmar Olivo
---

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

* JM: Haven't we  discussed this and the conclusion was inrupt would fund?
* SC: No, that was solidcommunity.net on CSS.
* JM: Right. 
* OO: We did discuss this back in April. It was one of the first topics of this scope topic.
* SC: That was about the content not being RDF, not running on a solid server. 
* JM: Any objection to make solidprojhect.org RDF and run on a solid sevrer? 
* OO: Hard for me to object but realistically, we cannot say we will do this and have nobody do the work.
* JM: After we're done with this exercise it gives me approval to go find the resources to do ot. 
* VB: I wanted to say that I think that Jeff said he would be interested in this as a project and I would like to volunteer to do this.
* SC: Understand no objections and we're all interested, and more about resources. Besides the technical aspect there is the socialaspect of what that communicates. The promary website of this project should be... if it's not fit to run our own website... It showds the maturity of the project. SolidProject.org is equally important to solidcommunity.net running on CSS. 
* VB: +1
* JZ: I'd like to separate 3 things: 1: is moving solidproject.org to be located in a solid server. 2: process of getting materials on the server be a solid process 3: RDFization. They should go in that order. (JZ: actually #3 should come before or simultaneously with #2)
* TBL: Makes sense.
* JM: Objections? 
* TBL: We shouldn't hope to do things we've no ??? if we write up the job that needs to be done then maybe people will be interested in them. It's good to define those things and have a roadmap.
* VB: +1
* OO: We're separating is this in scope vs we have the resource. But step in between is prioritization. We have a list of items. We cannot say we will go after all of them this year. We need to rank them in priority, otherwise everyone will be working on everything and we won't make progress. 
* SC: Important for Solid CG/WG to properly demo stuff for https://solidproject.org/TR/ to be available from a Solid server. We can figure out integration with GH separately. I made a request to do things in TR space and it was not possible. I want to be able to have out of the box Solid sevrer ???
* TBL: You're arguing for prioritizing this, but we have to have a list in priority. I propose we use GH kanban board (project) to put all the things we need to do in order. 
* VB: I think we can wrap it up and move on to the next topic, but we should probably have a dedicated session to prioritize, but this should be high on the prioity list.
* JM: Once we're done with this list I will go through all meetings minutes and distill into a summry, then we can do prioritization. Then we'll have a resource acquisition plan that will address those ideas. 
* JM: Objections to this being on the list of things to do? 
* JM: No objections.

### Proposal: third-party social media accounts
URL: https://github.com/solid/team/issues/35#issuecomment-1543712055
* SC: Is solid team controlling these accounts? Which ones? Are we agreeing with ToS? Who is communicating/sending messages out on these accounts? Are they approved? Who do they speak on behalf of? Is it automated? Examples: twitter, vimeo, eventbrite, etc. This is something we need to review. 

#### Should the Solid Team be controlling such accounts?
* JM: I think yes. That could range from direct to Solid team consenting another org that have resources to have control. 
* TBL: Yes. 
* VB: I think that this ties into the topic of bringing back the role of "community manager." I suppose that would be the role that would be managing the account, but I think that should be in control of the Solid Team.
* TBL: Managing accounts from the point of view of logging in, paying... is a system's administration's role?
* VB: Right, but I mean also content published. 
* SC: It means that these accounts represent the Solid team.
* JZ: Puts responsibility on us to make sure these are moderated. 
* SC: Yes. 
* JM: At high level we're in agreement. 

ACTION: JM to add task to itemize list of accounts that are intended to speak on behalf of the group to list of tasks to prioritize

#### Decide whether the Solid Team (continues to) agrees with the Terms of Service on a per service basis.
* JM: Of each platform?
* SC: Yes. Are these the type of communities we want to communicate in? 
* JM: Is this because of the person who owns twitter spreading fascist information? 
* SC: That'd be one example. 
* TBL: For some of those things, I worry the question coming from a specific sphere. Should SolidProject be on twitter is a very specific question we can ask, but reviewing ToS of every service means a waste of time.
* SC: I meant the former. Where do we want to have a presence in. 
* JM: Presence on platform doesn't mean we condone the administrator of a platform. For example Elon Musk might be questionable but we still want to use the communication channel. 
* SC: If that was the question (to be in a specific platform that is questionable), I would object. 
* JM: My two cents is I won't object to presence on any platform. 
* VB: I disagree that presence on a platform is not condoning the actions of the owner of the platform, and I say this knowing I'm a hypocrite with a Twitter account.
* TBL: Which platform are we on?
* JM: To my knowledge, twitter, vimeo, mastodon, reddit (Arne moderated), eventbrite, matrix, discourse.
* VB: LinkedIn? Idk.
* JM: There ar e alot of Solid projects on Linkedin. At least 5 different accounts. 
* JM: Any objections to any of these accounts that we're on?
* VB: Can we first find out which accounts we're on that are actually ours?

ACTION: JM wrestle control of various Solid social accounts so that the Solid team has access to them.

* JM: Of the ones we know we have control, do we need to discuss? ???
* SC: We're running through the assets of the team. For each service we say it's ours and messages are on behalf of the team. 
* JM: Trying to avoid to come back around to this topic. 
* VB: We need a list of what accounts we have. 
* SC: the fact we don't know this is exactly why we need to go through this exercise. 
* TBL: Can anybody think of other accounts we might be missing? Matrix.
* JZ: We use Discourse for the Forum. 

#### Where would proposals for information to be communicated be made?
* JM: SC, do you mean that someone might want to propose things to be announced? Where would they make a proposal? 
* SC: Yes. 
* JM: I don't think there's a proper medium for that.
* TBL: That all falls under Solid Team.
* JM: There should be a place on SolidProject.org that lets people submit stuff. 
* JM: Objections to havign a link where people can make proposals? 
* VB: This ties into the newsletter. We should have a link where people can contact us and we should have someone go though what should be in the newsletter and social media. I would rather say "tell us about your project." 
* SC: I don't have a specific proposal but be more open and transparent. GH is one of those things where a proposal is open and it can be tracked in the open. 
* VB: We should have both. 
* JM: Should be some form where people can submit. Community manager running the accounts would cehck that. 
* SC: Topic below is the option of automating. 
* JM: That can be done but it's extra work. 
* Hadrian: specific person should choose what is approved? 
* JM: We shouldn't need to wait until a team meeting. The team can consent to trust a specific person to take care of it and intervene if there are problems. 
* SC: Yes. 
* Hadrian: I assume the inventory we're creating is important, and then coming up with a process to assign that person. 
* TBL: If we have one thing in particular can be assigned to anyone who volunteers. And make one person in charge of communications.

#### Clarify when communication is intended to relay or speak on behalf of entities.
* JM: Is this like if we for example make a tweet, we clarify ??? 
* SC: Anything from endorsing something to announcing or bringing awareness to things. 
* TBL: A common patter is you quote tweet something and in the tweet you say something about that tweet. Explain relationship between what your tweeting and the quoted content. 
* JM: The tone used is that we're communicating news. 
* JM: Objections to handling it this way? 
* SC: Main point is making the distinction clear between communicating and endorsing. 

#### Ensure consent to relay or speak on behalf of entities is in public record prior to communicating.
* JM: When would we speak on behalf of an entity other than Solid team? 
* SC: If we were to say something on behalf of someone, we need to actually receive consent to do so. 
* JM: Requirements are I have a written proof with this entity? 
* SC: If we move to the open it's better. Use of GitHub for these things help. 
* JM: On the other hand I want to avoid getting rid of easy options for people. For example, give option to people to send in things, I don't want a requirement to be to submit a PR. Adds overhead. As long as we have email record. 
* SC: We can also create issue to track that it was received. 
* VB: It might deter people from submitting their projects because they don't want to be listed somewhere. That's another concern that we should take into account. I might have a project that I want to be submitted, but I don't want my name anywhere until it's approved.
* SC: It seems hypothetical, why wouldn't anyone want to do that.
* VB: It happens already. Sometimes people are shy, and we should try to have a way for people to reach out privately.
* JM: I don't want to overcomplicate, and make everything extremely formal. As long as there's some record of consent, I think we're okay. We should be an accepting community. 
* SC: +1
* VB: +1

#### Who communicates from the Solid Team? Can it be automated, e.g., PR merge -> use API to send out a status message.
* JM: Automation means you need a technical person top maintain automations. If it's a priority we should look into having this setup. In my opinion, it would be low priority. 
* SC: I meant if it's automated, we're focusing on review/approval process itself and not need for a particular role to follow up. If a PR is merged, it's done. 
* JM: I think communication needs to be more agile. PRs for this might lead to stuff being in limbo. Easier for us to say there are people who have authority to communicate on behalf of the team and they can do whatever they want, if they ever do something we dislike we can discuss. 

#### What platforms are we in fact on?


| Platform | Status | Link |
| -------- | -------- | -------- |
| Twitter     | We control     | Text     |
| Vimeo | We use and control | |
| Subredit | There is one | |
| LinkedIn | There is one | company/solidOrg |
| Forum | We use and control| |
| Github | We use and control more than one org| |
| Matrix | We use and more or less contol| |
| Discourse | We use and control | |

### Clarify the use of Solid Code of Conduct for all repositories under the GitHub solid organisation
URL: https://github.com/solid/team/issues/36


### Solid Project.org Analysis

