# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

* Date: 2024-04-24T14:00:00Z
* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
* Chat: https://matrix.to/#/#solid_specification:gitter.im
* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
* Status: Draft

## Present
* [Virginia Balseiro](https://virginiabalseiro.com/#me)
* [Matthias Evering](https://solidweb.me/testpro/)
* [Sarven Capadisli](https://csarven.ca/#i)
* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
* [Pierre-Antoine Champin](https://champin.net/#pa)
* [Rahul Gupta](https://cxres.pages.dev/profile#i)
* Damon
* John Kirkwood
* Jesse

## 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

---

## Topics

* SC: If I can make it to the meeting, it'll be brief, and I'd more or less say what I've noted below.

### Special Topic Meetings
URL: https://github.com/orgs/solid/projects/16/views/1
* VB: Security BP topic rescheduled - date to be confirmed.
* VB: should we cancel next week meetings, there will be Solid Symposium https://events.vito.be/sosy2024
* SC: I don't think Tim should be a blocker. We need a good sample of people in the room to get on the same page. Next week I can't participate. Regardin SoSy many people will be traveling.
* VB: I will not be available the whole week.

### Solid Symposium 2024
URL: https://events.vito.be/sosy2024/

* SC: I suspect some will attend and will be traveling etc. I won't make it to the CG call next week (2024-05-01). Not sure about others..

### Updating WDs
URL: https://solidproject.org/TR/

* eP: outdated/invalid URL of JSON-LD context in WD https://solidproject.org/TR/notifications-protocol#protocol valid in ED https://solid.github.io/notifications/protocol
* eP: reminds me of need to publish updated WD https://solidproject.org/TR/oidc the ED has many fixes https://solid.github.io/solid-oidc/primer/
* VB: Let's revisit what needs to be done.
* SC: eP, let's doublecheck if the changes to the JSON-LD context introduced in the Notifications Protocol ED are already reflected in https://www.w3.org/ns/solid/notifications-context/v1 or if we need to follow-up, PR at solid/vocab. We/I can do it. Just would like to verify. We can do this asynch.
* SC: We made some updates to the JSON-LD context. We can also release 0.3 but we need to check.
* eP: Main problem is URL of JSON-LD context is invalid. We can make a bug fix release because it is confusing. Go with bug fix release.
* SC: We don't want people to implement current WD, we made a number of changes affecting the implementations.
* eP: don't remember many changes... if there are not many i can ??? if it's mostly JSON-LD context can we make a bugfix release?
* SC: can you do that quick diff to see?
* eP: we will cotniue on the chat.

ACTION: eP: to share a link with a diff between WD and ED

### WIP Implementation Feedback
* VB: We'll allocate some time for implementation feedback or interest to implement. Links to products/projects and demos welcome.

#### Tentative, preliminary, pragmatic plans for a public CSS instance
* VB: proposed by ME
URL: https://teamid.live/
URL: https://meisdata.io/
URL: https://opencollective.com/meisdata/projects/teamid
URL: https://hackmd.io/PTHgp2BTSM2XyVNi8omI_g?view
brainstorming, things to consider..., monetization

* ME: will move the plans in his head back and forth (had mike problems)

### WG Charter

#### Please upvote and downvote proposed WG names
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/75

* VB: Discussion at https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/73
* VB: We agreed to decide on final name today.
* SC: I've made minor updates to PAC's code ( https://champin.net/2024/solid-name.html ) : https://csarven.ca/tmp/wg-name-poll.html , e.g., shows voters. Feel free to update yours with this. I don't plan to keep my version on my site long. We could consider moving it over to Solid ecosystem monitor ( ping @Virginia Balseiro ) to be used for any issue / poll / reactions stuff.
* SC: One thing to mind / pass on to PAC (Pierre-Antoine Champin) / W3C Team here is that majority of the the names and voters are from the Solid community. The names may be leaning with Solid-perspective, but not necessarily ideal for the WG in and itself that's intended to at least not come across as Solid-centric. There is no perfect name and it'll mean different things to everyone. For example, "Linked Web Storage WG" may be quite meaningful to SW/LD/Solid folks, but perhaps not great for anyone outside that view - some may even dislike the whole "Linked" Stuff. Similarly "Decentralised Online Storage" could be well-rounded for a lot of people but "decentralised" can also mean different things to everyone. And, for some continuity with "Solid", I can see that being reused with a new acronym - but that might also add more confusion. Just wanted to raise these types of considerations towards the final naming that the wider W3C community can consider.
* PAC: I agree with above, Linked Web Storage is the most upvoted and least controvesial names. I share some concerns about Linked. Nothing in the charter mentiones linked data, currently it is not core to the charter. Some people may have reactions. That being said I don't want to impose a single view. The github issue is a good reference for the future.
* PAC: I sent the current version of the charter, didn't get any feedback yet. I got a confirmation from the 3rd chair, Eric Prud'hommeaux who has more exprience prevously working at W3C.
* eP: Glad to hear Eric will be involved especially because we want to rely heavily on shapes.

### Proposal for integrating DIDs into Solid
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/629

* VB: Pinged Damon to see if he can attend a call and discuss.
* VB: This is a duplicate of a previous issue, we can discuss it when we get damon and others involved.
* HZ: I'm netural and just wanted to clear some outstanding issues. My poisition is that Solid should accept anything that follows some characteristics. Solid should be future proof.
* PAC: At W3C I'm a team contact of DID group but took that role after the spec was published. On one hand I feel responsible to be consistent across the W3C groups. I think it makes sense to consider that, DID documents share a lot of features with WebID documents. When you look at the history of WebID, there was the FOAF profile. Later Henry Story proposed to use it to prove the identity. It's first purpose was to proof that control and verify it. It makes sense to see how those things converge. People in DID community think one should put as little as possible in the DID document. This contrasts many tendencies in WebID and FOAF to be very descriptive.
* HZ: I would like to see something concrete. Someone could come up with a proposal. I would not expect all the DID methods to be applicable.
* VB: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/217 is a proposal, we could pick up from there.
* HZ: There were many changes in DID since there.
* eP: who considers temselves experts in DID? Dmitri would be a good person to invite. Jackson Morgan. We should try a STM to get the people who consider themselves eperts and discuss with them.
* VB: We can ask on the mailing list and take it from there.
* SC: While there are various individuals working on both, I think it's on them to make the case. We have limited bandwidth to dedicate to features. This is the incubation space, we shouldn't wait for the working group and try to bring it directly there out of thin air. We can make a call, inviting people to make a PR, whether like they want to change WebID to DID, or propose new method, or whatever.
* eP: Would like to emphasize designing solid in a way tht is future-proof. wWe can do our best to make it easier to introduce in the future. We want to avoid breaking changes in the future.
* SC: If something is preventing the use of DIDs in Solid, the proponents of DID should make that case. I don't see why we need to do that work.
* eP: We need to be careful how we evaluate people are not bringing things into the community. Some people might think it's painful/not productive and prefer to work outside. Just because they don't bring to CG doesn't mean they don't care.
* SC: That's architecutre astronomy. We can't abstract everything just in case.
* HZ: The issue was brought to the CG, there are two issue, second marked as a duplicate. We should close those issues one way or another. No one rejects the idea, maybe next step would be STM making sure inviting the people with interest and expertise to that meeting.

ACTION: HZ to post to mailing lists, Solid and DID, inviting people to comment on the topic of DID.

### WG Chairs

* SC: I understand that Eric brings a lot of experience. Last I know he is affiliated with Janeiro Digital. There is one issue, some people with the same affiliation, as well as of other proposed chair with another affiliation were trying to shortcut process of ammending the charter without Solid CG's consensus: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/47 . I trust Eric and I know he knows W3C rules. I wonder if the two original proposed chairs are being changed. Many objections were about those chairs. If the already proposed 2 chairs lack experience, what do they bring to the table?
* PAC: I don't think they bring anything that would not be offered by other possible chairs. The objections raised by a number of AC reviewers, part of them were about W3C experience, adding Eric addresses that. Eric's association with Janeiro ended before the events you mention. I'm not sure but it might be not fair to have it weight on him. I believe that the two proposed chairs bring different perspectives to the table. On is working in the private company that is implementing Solid servers, the other one working in the public sector. Eric has his own perspective working on the shapes for example. I don't think concerns that were raised were sufficient to change the agreement with two proposed chairs. I think that adding Eric addresses the most justified objection.
* eP: Having the opportunity to work in the contet of WG with those three chairs I fully support, they have experience and understand the technology. I also have good experience of working with them in CG context.
* SC: I see a record that some of the players were not playing following the rules when writing the charter. We can look at people's past behavior to see how they will act in the future. We can also look at the meetings history to see when they were participating last time. Eric haven't participate for a long time. For me it is about the criteria. I put up a list of questions that chairs could ask themselves. Were they fighting for the CG or standing with their affiliations' agendas. There is work at W3C looking at transparency in chair selection process, e.g., some links at https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/455#issuecomment-1775355362
* PAC: I see what you are saying with regards to participation in the group. There is only few of us on the weekly CG calls. As much as I would like for the whole community to be well represented during those calls. I'm trying, and it is hard, it doesn't seem to be the case for the whole community to be fully representing the larger community. We had to take this.
* eP: I think CG is unproductive. I don't blame people for not participating. For many people it feels like an energy drain and like they move Solid forward by not participating. UX/DX meetings, hackathons are more productive. Solid Symposium has presentations that were never presented in the CG. CG should have a retrospective as to why it is discouraging for people to participate. If it's running against the wind. Not just last few weeks but last few years. Too much effort to fight.
* SC: I think we go off on the tangent. The point is if you want Solid stuff to succeed. The minimum assumption is to see how they worked on making CG to succeed. The ground work, chairing, running after that minor and large issues. Things that have to be done for Solid to move ahead. Saying that "I don't see CG productive so I just let them do their thing" is not useful. For months I've been asking for people commitments, where they are making the commitment to implement or not implement something. If you are running on the Solid brand show me ... People who want to chair, how they engaged in favour of their own affiliation, for example Solid Notification. There were a lot of specs like ACP, WebSockets that haven't been touched. I don't believe that Team decisions being made are necessarily objective. I'm not expecting an essay or line by line answers. There is a good number of questions in the list I proposed, e.g., https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/568#discussion-5605593