# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

* Date: 2023-10-04T14:00:00Z
* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
* Chat: https://matrix.to/#/#solid_specification:gitter.im
* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
* Status: Draft

## Present
* [Sarven Capadisli](https://csarven.ca/#i)
* [Virginia Balseiro](https://virginiabalseiro.com/#me)
* Aaron Coburn
* Osmar Olivo
* Laurens Debackere
* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
* [Pierre-Antoine Champin](https://solid.champin.net/pa/profile/card#me)
* [Timea Turdean](https:/timea.solidcommunity.net)
* [Matthieu Bosquet](https://github.com/matthieubosquet/)
* Maxime Lecoq
* [Daniel Vangrieken](https://github.com/Krieke)
* [Tim Berners-Lee](https://timbl.inrupt.net/profile/card#i)
* [Hadrian Zbarcea](https://hadrian.solidcommunity.net/profile/card#me)
* [Rahul Gupta](https://cxres.pages.dev/profile#i)
* April Daly

---

## 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/solid/specification/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 Balseiro

### Introductions
* DV: Got involved in semantic web working with Henry Story. More specialized in building streaming applications. HS passed away and I would like to continue his work based on a community solid server.

---

## Topics

### WIP Implementation Feedback

* SC: We'll allocate some time for implementation feedback or interest to implement. Links to products/projects and demos welcome.
* SC: Damodara _ [announced](https://matrix.to/#/!QxZtVBYQfMeMTnespj:gitter.im/$rAZQaQi1ek1lLnlNP8Ipsj9O-XwURkOCnpEGnSfwPKM) the [Manas project](https://github.com/manomayam/manas). Hope they can share more in an upcoming call.

### Special Topic Meetings
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/555

* SC: [Notes](https://hackmd.io/xUnMO7T9T9-C5B9hnBgeYQ) on the 2023-10-03 meeting about [Alternative solutions to container HATEOAS](https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/525).
* SC: New topic proposals welcome.
* RG: We discussed different requirements. I proposed being to able to write ??? to a container. TBL wants to run server upon a filesystem. Need to figure out how we can ???
* eP: Next week we can present this topic. Need to document ??? not necessarily running a solid server on top of a filesystem.
* TBL: Document guidelines if you want to write code that works in the filesystem.
* eP: One interest thing is, access control for groups, sounds similar to SAI inherited access. We can start a thread documenting address book and from SAI's side make a similar one.
* SC: How are STM working for everyone?
* RG: Only concern is gap between two meetings.. like 2 months.. you lose track of where you were and a lot of time rehashing.
* eP: Open to discussing 2 STM slots.
* SC: Dangerously close to replicating panels.
* eP: Panels were meetings not happening for weeks, but now we don't have enough time to cover all the topics.
* SC: Good point. Maybe if we take a topic for a week there could be both Tuesday and Thursday calls, for example.
* eP: +1
* SC: If we have the same topic for consecutive weeks we may be pushing off other important topics. Need to find balance.
* RG: We can stagger them.
* eP: Keep in mind that when WG starts a lot of work will move there.
* SC: WGs also have STM. Focused discussions won't go away, whether that's in WG/CG umbrella..

### CG Chairs Election
URL: https://www.w3.org/community/solid/charter/#chairs

* SC: More updates from W3C staff: They've stated that they can't provide staff support for CG voting - as third party - but they can help sharing configuration for OpenSTV to process the results for us. Not sure if it makes sense for PAC or TBL to get involved because they're CG participants (with W3C affiliation).
* SC: I suggested/pitched that we can use WBS to send a copy of each response to the election questionnaire to [e-mail] - readable/writeable only to CG participants (as opposed to [e-mail]), and myself (and anyone else that wants to help) can do the mechanical work of processing the results with OpenSTV and in the open, and it can be verified by anyone. This would be an "open" election in that everyone can see everyone else's votes. This would be the easiest and reliable solution, but I also mentioned the importance of private/secret voting. I asked for additional options and any advisory they have because using W3C's WBS is quite useful for us as that helps us address authenticating the participants/voters first and foremost, and again, working in the same way as TAG/AB elections.
* SC: W3C staff said they'll think about it and get back to me (in a timely fashion).
* SC: As always, please update your affiliations on W3C account.
* SC: Please contribute to [Self-Review Questionnaire for Chair Candidates](https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/568) towards decision making process and rationale, as well as transparency.
* DV: When is it expected that voting will happen?
* SC: As soon as we have a decision on that we can start as soon as possible. First, participants eligible to vote will be announced. Charter details this. If we decide today open voting is okay we can get it going before next Wednesday. Within a few weeks we should resolve the chair election.
* eP: Can we run a quick proposal on having open voting?
* SC: We could but let's weigh in pros and cons.
* OO: We're talking about tooling. Do we know who's running? If only one-two are running, then this is all not needed.
* SC: No, because nobody nominated themselves. But it's an important exercise to run the election even if one person is running. Besides abiding by the charter it is a lesson we can use for future elections.
* TBL: Can you explain why you have to have an election if there is only one candidate?
* SC: Because it's part of the agreement we have on the charter.
* TBL: Ridiculously bureacratic. When you're looking for people to ??? it's often hard to find people. One of the things W3C do is think of people who might be persuaded to do it.. and who has the skills.
* VB: I think it is worth finding - going through the process, tooling etc sorted for next time. Why not now?
* RG: Even if there is one candidate, election makes sense because you should have the right to say you don't like a candidate. At least have the option to not vote for anyone.
* OO: We may never need to. You proposed 3 chairs and we might never have the need to decide between more than 3 people.
* VB: See your point but also we don't know because people haven't announced themselves but will. We might have more than 3 in the future - would be nice.
* DV: +1 Virginia's point. But regarding ??? having these tools and processes would benefit us all because there will be a clear process, and other communities I am involved with have the process in place even if there's only one candidate. Also at this moment the list is not clear.
* TBL: Is anybody on this call who thinks they might be interested?
* VB: [crickets]
* VB: Maybe some people are building suspense.
* eP: I'm open to participate, even if it may not be needed due to number of people interested. At least you SC/VB are interested in setting up so we could move forward.
* SC: Charter says that if nobody else is running ??? we need to balance these things but there's value long term in having it run smoothly.
* TBL: Where this the self-review questionnaire come from?
* SC: I proposed it.
* TBL: Is that yours or something the group is committed to?
* SC: It is a suggestion for the group to take it up as they see fit. If someone nominates themselves they can articulate their position in response. Use it as a way of being clear about their interest and plans. Voters can also use it when reading a candidate proposal. Charter says we will have an open discussion with the candidates. This is a broader discussion at W3C about decisions, not just CG's views on how we might do elections.

//### Replace panels with breakout task forces
//URL: https://github.com/solid/process/issues/324

/> ACTION: SC to create discussion to improve contributing guide to detail how task forces are formed (in similar way to new work item proposal)

### Proposal for Solid-PREP work item or task force
URL: https://matrix.to/#/!QxZtVBYQfMeMTnespj:gitter.im/$5J52npu2Tqz1G-codb_NyJ30-bBCaCtQ2f-pRcwjg8o

* SC: Proposed by RG.
* RG: Would be nice if we can make it official that there will be a ??? start aligning solid notifications and solid PREP with the same notification format.
* SC: You want it as a work item?
* RG: Not sure if that or task force. I want people from Solid officially involved however it works out.
* SC: Can't force people to work on that.. if you create an issue as a new work item proposal we can get a feel of who wants to work.
* RG: Proposing myself as editor.
* RG: People can express it here. I can do the issue but this is the third week I propose it.
* eP: Have you looked at the [new work item proposal guidelines](https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#new-work-item-proposal)? There's a list of questions that the issue should answer. It's more practical if you can create an issue answering those questions.
* RG: In the chat I clearly stated the deliverables. Only thing is making it official so it comes under Solid CG copyright and repo. If people are interested in contributing.
* TBL: It's reasonable to accept as part of the CG as work item.
* SC: Low bar: 2 commitments.
* TBL: You were discussing in IETF right?
* RG: Right. IETF draft is for core protocol itself. The new work item is specifically for Solid notification format based on linked data.

ACTION: RG to create a new Work Item proposal

### Solid Protocol Version 0.11.0
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/milestone/7

* SC: Let's make sure to add any missing issues/PRs that can reasonably make it into this release. The ED includes class 3 and higher changes, and some in the pipeline. See [Solid Protocol ED Changelog](https://solidproject.org/ED/protocol#changelog).
* SC: Unless there is new information to discuss, I suggest we keep this topic short and only for awareness.

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

* SC: All, please review.
* SC: Seems a bit too detailed but I haven't reviewed.

### Solid WG charter - sync up with the published version
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/56

* eP: W3C published version differs from the one in this repo so I created a PR to sync up.
* PAC: It was part of the process that the charter would be in W3C charters repo. Hesitated on whether to freeze this repo so there is no ambiguity. Makes sense to merge and make clear where the latest version of the charter is.
* eP: Published version links to the Solid GH repo. If there's a different version it should be linked.
* PAC: Okay. I can change. I can commit to maintaining both in a consistent state. Solid repo is a better place to gather issues rather than have all the issues on charter drafts in one place.
* eP: SC, you requested changes, would you like to clarify?
* SC: CG prepared the charter and everything up to that preparation was based on consensus, with some hiccups. Once under W3C purview they have the right to make any updates, and incorporate feedback. There will be changes to this charter. Review period ends this week and feedback needs to be coming back. Point is distinguishing between what's based on CG consensus and what other decisions are made outside the CG. My understanding of this repo is this is CG territory. We can make the distinction.
* PAC: I see your point about distinguishing the versions but it might be confusing to people not familiar with the process. I lean towards the easiest version which is syncing up.
* SC: We will follow PAC's guidance. I don't have a strong position. Happy to change my review. Can we assign this to you?
* eP: We can label PRs with CG/W3C so we can track where changes are coming from.
* PAC: Yes.