# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

* Date: 2023-11-08T14:00:00Z
* 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)
* Hadrian Zbarcea (Inrupt)
* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
* [Jesse Wright](https://www.jeswr.org/#me)
* Aaron Coburn (Inrupt)

---

## 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/w3c-cg/solid/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.

### W3C Solid CG Repository
URL: https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/

* SC: Part of [2023-10-10 CG](https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-10-10.md) meeting on reorganising repositories.
* SC: Copied charter, guidelines, ecosystem monitor / chair election code, ..
* SC: TRs remain at [solid/specification](https://github.com/solid/specification/).
* SC: For example, I think eligible-voters data should be in w3c-cg/solid /charter-election/2023-mm-dd/
* eP: Lets say solid-contrib can be for ecosystem monitor / node-w3capi. I find to much noise related to minutes, punctuation corrections etc. to have it on a repo with a codebase.
* SC: I think this is fine. The point was that the repo can server as the homebase for the CG, it could also include the monitor codebase. If you want to publish it somewhere else we need to link to in anywhere.
* eP: When VB presented she mentioned it'd go beyond CG items so it may be better for solid-contrib or something for the wider Solid community / ecosystem.
* SC: I actually called it solid ecosystem monitor not the CG monitor. I asked in Solid Team but there was no reactions. We thought that it could be a broader ecosystem stuff.

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

* SC: Poll for Solid and Social CG joint meeting time: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/594
* SC: Draft agenda: https://hackmd.io/QOpHN7LsRQO5FwLLjD2zTg
* SC: Announcement: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2023Nov/0070.html
* SC: We could have meeting on the issue proposed by Michiel next week and in two week focus on the meeting with Social CG.
* SC: ...
* SC: See the linkto the draft agenda above :point_up:
* SC: Fediverse has another authn proposal for AP, and mastodon uses signing http messages, they don't have spec for it.
* eP: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-04.html

### W3C Solid WG Charter Proposal

#### clarify scope
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/62

* SC: Please review.

#### clarify the handling of low-maturity normative references
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/63

* SC: Please review.

#### First phrase, 'a' protocol
https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/64

* SC: Please review.

#### Mention Unhosted/remoteStorage as a non-normative input
https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/65

* SC: Please review.

### Add section on decisions and processing-pull-requests
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/590

>ACTION: Please review this PR by Nov 15

* SC: Having dates doesn't actually help with reviewing.
* SC: in WG there is support from W3C staff available ... we don't have the same from CG

### HttpSig Authentication for Solid
URL: https://github.com/solid/httpsig/

* SC: Moved specification from `solid/authentication-panel` to `solid/httpsig` repo.
* SC: See PR https://github.com/solid/httpsig/pull/1 updating editors/authors.
* SC: Any objections or suggestions?
* SC: It is already a work item, we just didn't put it in a separate repo, I PRd myself as editor and added Henry as an author.
* eP: With HttpSig as Work Item, there were two parts. Mentioned signing http messages from .. IETF. The other part was about publishing keys. For example. GNAP has a few different ways of proof of possession. Perhaps have on spec for publishing keys, then signing can be different? For client authn, publicJwk, you can use the same way of discovery and publishing keys.
* SC: I need to do more homework on this, I would be interested in having a STM on it.
* SC: Regarding the PR, I want to acknowledge an honor Henry. I want to know if people are ok with what I proposed.
* AC: I am +1 on SC's change
* AC: It is important to recognize Henry's contributions. At the same time it is important to have a clear person who is responsible for moving the work item forward.
* SC: That was the idea to signal who is the contact person now.

### Remove contributors, add authors
URL: https://github.com/solid/web-access-control-spec/pull/126

* SC: Any objections or suggestions?
* SC: There are only few specs which mention contributors, they usually have editors and authors.
* SC: I asked Henry long time ago can I add him as author. He didn't give me a clear answer.
* eP: IIRC, Henry was talking about WAC+ and had various functionality. Maybe he didn't want to be listed as author there was no consensus to include his changes so perhaps speculative but maybe he was talking about it. How ACP's stuff could also work in WAC re same use cases, evaluations .. https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/tree/main/proposals/evaluation
* SC: I talked with Matthieu and actually some things in ACP were improved based on Henry's feedback.

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

* SC: Notes: https://hackmd.io/a6jv3bfnQBGace7Ajd_ePw
* SC: I was talking with W3C ... We don't have complete support as it would be for TAG or AC elections.
* SC: We have some code that gets data from W3C API
* SC: https://github.com/VirginiaBalseiro/solid-ecosystem-monitor/pull/2
* SC: The idea is that by default we take participant with lowest w3c id (which is incremental number)
* SC: We will offer all affiliations to change a name.
* SC: In the end we will give a list of elegible voters to W3C staff
* AC: That sounds fine
* SC: While you here maybe you can give heads up to Inrupt since it has 14 participants.
* AC: I would probably be the inrupt name, you could use my name as default/designated Inrupt representative.
* eP: I will add you as designated and link to the minutes.
* AC: Whatever is easiest for your tooling is fine.

### Align shared core terminology
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/557

* SC: The discussion served its purpose (but we can improve as suggested by Ted). We should considering convert this to issues and/or PRs. And try to cover them for the next releases of the specs.
* SC: We need to be careful with what terminology we are changing. We could move that into small PRs and issues.
* eP: We may also want to draw a balance and provide a documentation where they can be input for the WG. Not sure if PRs would be best way because we hope it'll be transitioned to WG.
* SC: I think PR or any input we make matters. I hope that WG will need to review all the material. If there is a text out there I try to process it. PR is more about let's make a decision. The WG can always take a different direction.
* SC: Will try to take and make sense of it. Instead of looking at discussions, WG can look at the draft or PR.

### 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.
* SC: My informal view is that there might be to much detail for the solid protocol spec. It might be almost overwhelming. I would expect that implementers would use existing libraries. There must be a conversation how much detail belongs in the solid protocol and how much in the existing specs.
* AC: My feeling is to generally not recapitulate what is stated in existing specification. There is a complexity to that but having a slim specification which refers to others seems much better.
* SC: I agree

### Please review CG Report requirements
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/587

* SC: Concerns releasing CG-DRAFT/FINALs.
* SC: See also next topic re Solid Protocol v0.11.0
* SC: There was some complains that our specs look like TRs.
* SC: We need to release CG drafts and final reports. I don't think we need to do it if there are no actual req and editorial changes.

### 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.