# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

* Date: 2023-10-11T14:00:00Z
* 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)
* [Pierre-Antoine Champin](https://solid.champin.net/pa/profile/card#me)
* Aaron Coburn
* [Timea Turdean](https://timea.solidcommunity.net)
* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
* April Daly
* Hadrian Zbarcea
* Jeff Zucker
* [Rahul Gupta](https://cxres.pages.dev/profile#i)
* Laurens Debackere
* Hydroidev
* James Doe Jr.

---

## 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
* elf Pavlik

### Introductions
* name: text

---

## Topics

### WIP Implementation Feedback

* SC: We'll allocate some time for implementation feedback or interest to implement. Links to products/projects and demos welcome.

### WG Charter Proposal Status Update

* SC: Proposed by PAC.
* PAC: The charter has been reviewed by member organizations. Votes are member confidential. We had a pretty good number of votes, majority in favor. We still have few formal objections. Now the team needs to make amendments to the charter to get those formal objections withdrawn. We have 3 months for that but are not required to wait the 3 months. If objections are not resolved in that time it goes in front of the council. The council can decide to overwrite the objections and still create the WG.

- more neutral/experienced chairs (15, FO)
- PAC: lack of experience of proposed chairs was mentioned. we may need to propose 3rd chair to address those concerns
- broaden the scope of the group, do not restrict the solution space (9, FO)
- PAC: it would be better if the group address the problem and bring to the table all ideas proposing the solutions. i think this might be unfair, if we have come with no idea for solutions we would have been told to create a CG first. We should argue that this is not a complete solution, this is one way of solving the problem which was incubated in the CG.
- extend timeline (6, FO)
- PAC: This should be easy to fix
- more detailed deliverable / align criteria+dependencies with deliverables (5, FO)
- PAC: Some of the dependencies are not listed as deliverable, there is a problem for recommendation to depend on something unstable.
- "single vendor implementation" / "Inrupt WG" (5, FO)
- PAC: This should be easy to prove as mischaracterization
- liaise with IETF HTTP WG (2, FO)
- PAC: This is a fair assessment, Solid heavily depends on HTTP, IETF has strong opinions on that and we should be discussing it with them.
- make it clear that the WG will follow the W3C process and not the Solid process (2, FO)
- PAC: Solid process references a director which doesn't match latest W3C process. We should clarify that Solid WG will follow W3C process. And in fact the CG is already following in that regard.
- less grandiose claim about what the WG will achieve (1, FO)
- PAC: We should clarify that we are not trying to solve the problem once and for all. This is a specific solution that various stakeholders are asking for.
- editorial changes to charter (2)
- WebID-based DID (1)

* eP: Which of those CG can help with and which are W3C Team working on them?
* PAC: Have not thought of that but fair question. Any opinion on those topics is welcome. We can discuss them here or reach out to me for additional information that can be improved on the charter. If you're asking, to what extent PRs on the charter be relevant. Feel free to ask but can't promise to accept them all. But it can be a start for discussion.
* RG: I wanted to ask if those remarks are public or were submitted directly to the W3C team.
* PAC: Members can choose to make the responses public but are not required. This is a synthesis of public and non-public responses.
* SC: For some of the significant feedback requiring to update charter, clarify process, etc.
* SC: We need to update editors draft to be updated with current charter. If you see that some specific specs are not doing what they are supposed to do please let us know.
* SC: Charter is referring to the TRs, to updated them we need to make a new release. WG can look at either editor drafts or latest publish versions on solidproject.org/TR
* SC: I see most of the points as straight forward to address. Including broadening the scope. If you could come up with concrete issues we could propose PRs addressing those specific issues. We don't want to randomly propose things.
* PAC: My goal is to create an issue for each one of those items. Whenever I can include more details I will do it. For public votes I will copy and paste all the details.
* PAC: We probably want to use `solid/solid-wg-charter` for those PRs no to create to much activity on W3C charters repo.
* PAC: I'm not worried about the contents of the cg.
* eP: Regarding dependencies. Our latest approach to was to mark them as optional deliverables.
* PAC: We don't have a clear list of deliverables. Depending on the maturity of the specs is transferring the authority to the CG. Here the criticism on different process between CG and WG is valid. We should think which specifications WG can bring to REC. We should decide for the rest if we make them soft or optional dependencies.
* eP: Extending the timeline, would it be feasible that the dependencies are necessary for Solid. Instead of depending on CG or whatever else.
* SC: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/37#issuecomment-1566833007
* SC: This is precisely the thing that we needed a feedback from W3C. If either the charter is accepted with all of those deliverables, or there needs to be understanding that Solid Protocol still can get to REC irrespective to the status of the dependencies.
* SC: The current list of deliverables is already a lot for a WG. I took ages to get to the point where the specs are now. For example for Solid Protocol there has been few months of waiting for the next release since there are not reviews being submitted. What guarantee would WG participants can give that they'll actually get things done when they didn't in the CG.
* SC: W3C needs to tell us what is acceptable. I linked to some examples, AS2 or ActivityPub which link to some dependencies which were not mature enough at that time.
* PAC: I agree. CG can give feedback on which specs are mature enough to put on REC track and which could be made optional in solid protocol.
* eP: Would it make it clear that those dependencies are 1.0, then 2.0 that can be released 2 years later and can swap those dependencies? Some kind of an evolution of Solid.
* SC: This sounds like a very hypothetical discussion. Maybe even Solid will fall apart and there will never be 2.0. This could be a special topic meeting on it's own. Depends on variables and incubation and adoption etc... etc..

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

* SC: Notes on the 2023-10-11 meeting about [Reorganizing CG assets](https://hackmd.io/8Mgs5jt_Ry2656JSOzfkAg).
* SC: New topic proposals welcome.
* SC: There are some process related documents and also spec documents. We are thinking to move process related assets to a dedicated repo. There are few documents in `solid/process` which are CG specific and also should be moved to the new repo. There will be PRs coming so please keep an eye on those repos.
* SC: Would it make sense to have a special meeting dedicated to WG charter?
* PAC: This could work.
* SC: Once we have issues created, everyone could prepare better for that meeting.

### Task Forces
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/581

* SC: Just a stub for now.

### Disciplinary Policy, Process, and Procedures
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/576

* SC: Just a stub for now.
* SC: I don't want it to focus on punishment, more about having a healthy culture.

### Solid CG Chair Election Procedure
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/582

* SC: Summary..
* SC: Everyone should review it, I will unlock it as soon as I get it reviewed by W3C staff.
* SC: They are on-board and interested to see how it is going to work.
* SC: We need volunteers to review eligible participants list, based on charter and affiliations.
* SC: W3C can't act as 3rd party, they don't have resources to do that. They will help us to anonymise the results and use W3C tool to process the results.
* SC: We need to agree on when do we start.
* SC: We also need volunteers to compute the results.
* JZ: I don't have any problem in general. I agree with Tim that people should be encouraged to give their vision of how they want to chair. We shouldn't suggest how one should chair the CG.
* VB: I'm happy to help with counting and processing. The self-review is meant as an exercise for oneself and not a list of question that one has to answer.
* SC: W3C has a document on chair role which is on top of that discussion. It has some guidelines of what is expected from chairs.
* SC: We also hope for 3 chairs which will bring diverse perspectives.
* SC: We need at least one more volunteer besides Virginia
* SC: Should we set date for next Wednesday for snapshotting eligible participants? For voting and chair nominations.
* VB: We can go with 1 week
* HZ: +1
* PAC: +1
* HZ: I can also volunteer
* TT: To review participants list or to chair?
* SC: To review the list and run that open STV tool from W3C.
* eP: I can also volunteer

### [New Work Item Proposal] Solid-PREP
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/580

* SC: Proposed by RG. Please ping in the issue to co-own so it'll be a work item.
* RG: I have mentioned everything in the issue.
* RG: I don't expect it a lot of work, there is already an open issue for that.
* eP: Issue relates to storage operations. There is another issue in solid/specification (which is unresolved). We could move to the core perhaps in the WG. That seems like a dependency in these kinds of activities. There may be complications on how this could be resolved.
* eP: It shouldn't stop the work item. Happy to collaborate. Not lead but contribute with feedback.

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

* SC: All, please review.
* SC: Didn't get a chance to review but very interested in us getting this (in one shape or another) into 0.11.0.

### 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.