# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

* Date: 2023-07-26T14:00:00Z
* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
* Chat: https://gitter.im/solid/specification
* 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)
* Maxime Lecoq
* Radhika Chippada
* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
* [TallTed // Ted Thibodeau](https://github.com/TallTed/) (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com)
* Wouter Termont

---

## 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

### Introductions
* RC: Been exploring Web3 technologies, technically interesting and felt like we're trying to put a square peg in a circular.. most solutions talk about implementing in blockchain don't need blockchain. So looking around came into Solid spec and it answers most of the questions around owning content. Wanted to join to know where we are, why is the spec not much more widespread, etc.

---

## Topics

### W3C Solid WG Proposal Status Update
* PAC: One month since horizontal review was requested. Just that we didn't miss the core values we didn't get all of them but I was instructed to move forward, asked for green light to start AC review.
* SC: AFAIK, i18n team approved - or at least had no objections with the charter.
* PAC: They did respond but we didn't got any other response. Important horizontal reviews happen on ??? and those have longer timelines. For charter proposals, it's shorter, so it doesn't hold the work back.
* SC: Do you know when it would leave horizontal reviews?
* PAC: We can make do without the missing ones and move forward. Maybe a week before a new group called TILT need to approve the proposal before sent to AC. Hope I can send call for review to AC by next week and ask for a response by beginning of september. TPAC even would be good time to start WG or discussion with objectors if there are formal objections.
* SC: Do we need to explicitly ping TAG? There's been mentions of TAG having a look at Solid Protocol in the mailing list and we have an issue in the charter... can we expect a response from them or is it open?
* PAC: More of an open review.
* SC: While we are on the WG charter proposal:

### Update mission
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/7

* SC: This is editorial. PRs welcome.

### WIP Implementation Feedback
* SC: We'll allocate some time for implementation feedback or interest to implement. Links to products/projects and demos welcome.
* SC: More on the future of this topic in [Solid Demos](#Solid-Demos) and other dedicated meetings.

### Add W3C Solid CG Charter
URL: https://github.com/solid/process/pull/323

#### Raw data
* SC: As of now on the PR:
* SC: 18 participants.
* SC: 12 reviews and approvals, 0 requested changes, 1 comment (editorial).
* SC: 3 thumbs-up and 2 thumbs-downs emoji reactions on the original comment. Various exciting emojis throughout the thread.
* SC: 15 commits integrating feedback from the reviews, meetings, and elsewhere.
* SC: 127 conversations.
* SC: Some brief/General discussions in mailing list, Solid forum, Matrix chat.
* SC: Thank you for all feedback. If you haven't yet reviewed, please review. This charter is by us for us!
* SC: Some open discussions as follows:

#### License
* SC: See thread https://github.com/solid/process/pull/323#pullrequestreview-1512907580 discussing MIT and W3C CLA/FSA licenses.
* SC: Current state: pending W3C guidance.
* SC: Is it useful to get ahold of W3C legal?
* PAC: I'll ping a few people and point them to th PR.
* SC: Could we agree to leave the section on licensing as is until we hear back? My understandign is that us using MIT right now does not prevent us from creating snapshots of CG drafts and finals. My suggestion is to wait until we hear back before accepting the charter.
* eP: I'd like to propose to copy and paste the discussion into a separate issue and PAC can point to that separate issue.

ACTION: eP to create the issue. done: https://github.com/solid/process/issues/327

#### UI layer metadata
URL: https://github.com/solid/process/pull/323/files#r1270051384

* SC: Raised by RB.
* SC: I believe it refers to whether descriptions of UI can be referred to in vocabularies, etc. I mentioned SolidOS' UI vocab.
* SC: Can others review the questions? Is this generally covered by the Scope? Should it be explicitly listed?
* eP: In terms of what will be published bt CG, would that be a note?
* SC: My interpretation would be vocab and possibly shapes. Solid CG is the only working on it, SolidOS is interested in it.. so we should acknowledge.
* WT: I think that everything that will be done on UI level should/could rely on the work done in application interoperability and the panes and shapes are important but should be gathered under the work item of interop.
* SC: We have data shapes as an item under scope. Should we revise that item to emphasize UI?
* WT: Could change wording to something more general, maybe mention relationship between data/display thereof.
* eP: I think it doesn't seem to be out of scope. New work item describes workflow describes how new working items can be proposed for the CG. I think this should just go through this workflow.
* SC: We don't say vocabularies but we could mention alongside data shapes.
* WT: I think that it's in scope but need to mention specifically shapes/vocab when the point is interoperability. Maybe mentioning as examples.
* VB: +1
* SC: If we say UI layer metadata, would that be enough? Emphasis is on the UI.
* WT: Partly UI but independent from specific libraries or applications. Relation between an application and data, which includes how data should be rendered in UI, but also how applications do other things with data. For me it's all about interoperability.
* VB: +1
* SC: To me it's not so much about interop. Should we wait for RB to respond and go from there in the thread?
* VB: Worth updating data shapes with interoperability and as example "data shapes and vocabs" and wait on the UI part until we have clarification.
* SC: Objections to saying vocabs and data shapes for now until we hear back from RB?
* SC: No objections.

ACTION: SC to update.

#### Consider updating last call and approval dates
* SC: Raised by MC that folks may be on holidays. Last call: 2023-07-25, Approval: (after) 2023-08-01 dates were proposed ( https://github.com/solid/process/pull/323#issuecomment-1629875377 ) . This was accepted in prior calls. WT hinted at 28 days being sufficient in recent comments and extending further may not particularly help considering current state.
* SC: Reviews seem sufficient to me but always welcome to have more representation, so getting more reviews would be great.
* SC: Here are two proposals but let's get other feedback or alternative proposals before deciding anything.

PROPOSAL: Extend approval date (2023-08-01) to something else.

PROPOSAL: Change Last Call to 2023-08-01 and Approval By 2023-08-08.

* eP: We should do out best effort to address those thumbs down: Melvin and Hadrian. Melvin voiced his concerns, let's try to get Hadrian to explain. Once we clarify that we're good to go. No problem with delaying, but still. I can reach out to Hadrian to get him to comment.
* SC: Not so much addressing the concerns/emoji. It's more about giving time to folks to review. Could the group use more time to gather more responses? If it had been 50/50 it feels yes, e should extend, but here we have more than most groups charters or even PRs having this number of approvals as well as long discussion to indicate it has been thoroughly discussed. That does not mean we need to stop it, but would another two weeks/month/year help?
* WT: I partially agree with eP on the fact that we could try to hear the people who reacted only through emoji, but also want to voice my concern that if they were there in the thread and had the possibility to comment but didn't feel the need to, just leaving emoji I don't feel the urge to go after them and ask them what is it that they put an emoji for. That being said, I'm in favor of extending another week or two.
* SC: This is not a standard for a CG, W3C has an understanding that if 5% of members approve a charter or a spec level transition it goes ahead. Not sure if it's written down somewhere. If we use that measure we are pretty much at that stage. So we have met the bar. The more reviews the better.
* PAC: This is a rough understanding, but yes, for a vote to be considered relevant we expect 5% of members to vote. Not sure if we can apply to CG. My understanding is that not all member organizations are interested in all fields of work. Participants to a CG are expected to be all interested in the same topic. So not entirely comfortable to use that rule, but that being said is that participation in CG is "cheaper" than W3C.. so many participants might be inactive and not expected to give their opinion. My point is I would not invoke that rule, but that doesn't mean the 5% rule isn't reasonable≤ for totally different rasons.
* SC: PAC, do you think the amount of feedback, discussion, reviews, etc. looks healthy? The group has 272 people, compared to a WG charter or other CG charters, does it look good? Related to comment by Ted: (URL)
* PAC: It looks healthy enough for me. It's hard to measure how many of the registered participants in the CG are still active so I guess this is the best measure we have of who is engaged at the moment and that's also a pragmatic way of dealing with that. If someone is strongly opposed to this charter and engaged enough to try and be heard, they would have already.
* WT: I did a count of active member over the past year on Matrix/Gitter, and there were about 50 people active. That would make the 13 respondents about a quarter. I have been waiting a few weeks in order to see if others ask for changes. Maybe we can call it as is now and if there are suggestions for changes we can always make them later.
* VB: +1.
* SC: Objection to extend approval date from Aug 1st?
* VB: We should probably extend but probably not too much. Just a week.
* SC: Next proposal is that. Last call Aug 1st, approve Aug 8.
* VB: +1
* WT: +1
* eP: +1
* PAC: +1
* SC: I suggest we use this time to reach out to people who haven't reviewed/comment, or come to the meeting.
* WT: I would object to more than that though, to have it noted...

#### Add start of effective date
* SC: Related to approval/finalisation date. The charter should include start/effective date.
* SC: Perhaps the beginning of the following month, i.e., 2023-09-01 if charter accepted in 2023-08?
* SC: If we finalize charter in August can we have it effective September?
* WT: +1
* VB: +1

ACTION: SC to update with above.

### Solid Demos
* SC: Following https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-07-19.md#solid-demos
* SC: There is a "Call for Group updates and Technical Demos (videos)" at TPAC2023. It is suggested that we can showcase the work done in the Solid CG by creating a short video to be published on the TPAC2023 website. Videos are due by 2023-08-30. More details to follow but there is https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2023/Demos_and_Group_updates#Best_Practices_for_Recording_Videos .
* SC: We have two separate cases to communicate/demo: 1) general CG work, and 2) specific use cases or interests.
* SC: For the time being, I suggest everyone self-publishes their screencasts, and share the URLs with the CG. These are good assets. We can find a home to refer to those links. More details to follow: make sure the URL is publicly archivable by the Internet Archive for instance.

### Are URI semantics just necessary or sufficient to determine containment relation?
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/505

* SC: Would everyone like to address this in a weekly call - limited time - or move to a dedicated call?

### Proposals for Dedicated Calls
* SC: Noting here for now:
* 2023-08-08: [Alternative solutions to container HATEOAS](https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/525).
* yyyy-mm-dd: Solid Demos.
* yyyy-mm-dd: Implementer Feedback meeting.
* yyyy-mm-dd: Reorganizing github repositories [related issue](https://github.com/solid/process/issues/324).