# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

* Date: 2024-04-03T14:00:00Z
* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
* Chat: https://matrix.to/#/#solid_specification:gitter.im
* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
* Status: Draft

## Present
* [Matthias Evering](https://solidweb.me/testpro/)
* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
* [Sarven Capadisli](https://csarven.ca/#i)
* [Pierre-Antoine Champin](https://champin.net/#pa)
* April Daly
* Hadrian Zbarcea
* Michiel de Jong
* Grace Elcock
* Kirah Sapong
* [Rahul Gupta](https://cxres.pages.dev/profile#i)
* [Ted Thibodeau](https://github.com/TallTed/) (he/him) [OpenLink Software](https://www.openlinksw.com/)
* Maxime Lecoq

---

## 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
* Sarven Capadisli

### Introductions
* KS: Interested about the work you're doing. Going to pay attention to some of the decisions you come up with.

---

## Topics

### Implementation Feedback

* RG: I've put out a middleware for Solid-PREP. Feel free to check it out.
* https://github.com/CxRes/express-accept-events-temp
* https://github.com/CxRes/express-prep-temp
* https://github.com/CxRes/express-events-negotiate-temp

* RG: These are connect/express middlewares that work together to implement PREP.

### discussion#555 should be made to look like it's no longer active, with more blatant link to current "project"16
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/635

* VB: Related: https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/issues/20
* RG: We need to migrate the discussion over?
* MdJ: The way to propose a STM is to put it on the project board.
* RG: It was about the minutes. How/where.
* eP: I think we can worry about it when we have minutes. When only 3 people joining and questionable if anyone is scribing, one of the people may write a summary. STM hasn't been working so well — low participation.
* RG: We've been keeping minutes sometimes. SC was pointing out having it accessible from one place. Not hackmd. Sarven's proposal was to PR but I felt it was a bit too much. In the discussion, there is a way to record. VB pointed this out last week. Whatever we do, even if in hackmd, we can copy over so that everything is in one place.
* MdJ: There is a column in project 16. That's the right place to list it. Use URLs that would be persisted. For instance GH.
* RG: When you open that, there is a place where you can record text.
* MdJ: Should have hyperplinks.
* HZ: If you want things in one place, doesn't matter.
* SC: Separate the idea on scratchpad notes from minutes. The latter is imporant for referencing, decisions, etc., and they go in [solid/specification](https://github.com/solid/specification/).

### Meeting Minutes

* VB: We've been operating with the understanding that the minutes are available relatively soon after the meeting (for several years in fact). [CONTRIBUTING](https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#decisions) indicates that expectation to merge "within 2 days." Do we need to change this expectation to 1 month?
* VB: If there is an issue with the pipeline we are currently using, the alternative to use W3C infrastructure could allow us to publish minutes immediately after the call: <https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/issues/18>.
* MdJ: Does anyone know what VB wants to say about this?
* eP: I think the understanding is the chair should make a PR soon after the meeting and merge after two days. Concern is if PR is not made and/or it is not merged.
* MdJ: Rather than guessing what VB is thinking, lets move on to the next topic.
* SC: {Clarifies what the issue is}
* MdJ: If not merged in 2 days, then someone can merge.
* AD: I believe the expectation is timely posting of minutes. It shouldn't always fall-back to the same person (unless agreed upon by the appropriate parties (e.g., meeting chairs)).
* eP: Not sure if there are chair meetings but this could probably be resolved between chairs. We all don't have to be involved in the conversation.

### WG Charter Proposal

#### Name suggestions for the proposed working group
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/73

* VB: PAC, 1) is this sample sufficient for the poll? 2) poll now or another week? 3) will you follow-up and reach out to any particular W3C group/team for the poll?
* PAC: There is plenty of input for me. I didn't have in mind a particular procedure. Official poll or anything. First was to collect input. Yes, we have enough to move forward. The next step is CG's decision.
* eP: I'd like to ask if everyone thinks where everyone makes one proposal.
* RG: The idea is to come up with the best choice.
* HZ: I think we don't have a process to filter down to one. Maybe that's something we need to talk about now. Do we want to vote individually or rule out outliers? To keep it minimal and have a deadline.
* MdJ: Maybe create an issue for the proposal.
* SC: No need to bikeshed the name. Get something out. If CG makes the decision as PAC mentions, do we need to get AB, TAG, AC, etc., involved in the naming and/or polling?
* PAC: My initial idea was to create an issue to just get input. But last week I was under the impression that it mattered to some people on the call that there should be a vote and maybe not everyone should be allowed to vote. The SOlid CG is being asked how they'd like this PUMPKIN WG to be named. Once that's made. I'm happy to follow CG's decision. The W3C Team proposes a charter.
* HZ: How
* MdJ: Let's create a Discussion and vote. Not perfect but have something at least.
* eP: Discussion would be good. Maybe cut the line; everyone makes one PROPOSAL. We need both thumbs up and down. Some proposals are probably undesired — from my side.
* MdJ: What's the downside? If not good, they won't be selected. I think we take all the proposals now and everyone can up/down, multiple ones, as you see fit.
* eP: One PROPOSAL per comment.
* MdJ: Right. Doesn't matter.
* SC: Proposals are just on the table. Doesn't matter. Pick one that's most representative of the initiative.
* RG: Who is the ultimate owner/arbiter for this WG charter? How much is the CG input considered?
* MdJ: There is W3C Team and there is also Solid Team but they're not the same.
* PAC: I'm working on the assumption that Solid Team is aware. There are a number of people I've been communicating with. I can ensure that Solid Team is aware. W3C Team makes the charter proposal.
* RG: Amongst the names, I'm presuming that it is the W3C Team that will select the name. What I'm uncertain is, if the new charter replaces the previous, what is the expected breadth of topics that you want to take up? That helps us determine the name. Narrow/Broad.
* PAC: The whole point of the charter to describe the scope. I hope the answer to the question is in the charter. The name should reflect the rest of the charter. I guess that's why SC considers the name is not that important, and the whole charter carries...
* HZ: We make this proposal. It looks like PAC considers this a blocker. Who is going say the name — Solid CG or you (PAC)?
* PAC: I'm happy to make the final decision. I was under the impression that CG wanted to control the name. I was just pushing this to CG. I stepped back from last week so that the CG owns it.
* HZ: If we don't make a decision, then it'll take another week without outcome. I propose to make a decision on how to continue with the process. Or what information PAC wants and we'll try to deliver.
* PAC: The proposal is to separate name proposals and vote.
* MdJ: I'll create the poll, and we can continue from there.
* HZ: Is there an objection to this?
* eP: I think we can continue the existing one? I suggest one per person.
* MdJ: I was just going to create a new one. And copy the ones from there. Otherwise we'll have to wait.

ACTION: MdJ to create a new Discussion with PROPOSALs.

#### Charter should limit the scope of identity to HTTP based identifiers
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/70

* VB: PAC, should that issue be marked as duplicate of [Consider marking DID out of scope](https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/54) ? Additional feedback needed? Should the commenter be present in a CG call in order to further process this or can we close?
* PAC: I concur that they can be merged. They're duplicates.
* SC: There are several people working on integrating DIDs with Solid (links to follow). We have a (relatively stalled) spec for a *Solid DID method*. I don't see why the charter should make a call that any particular identifier system is out.
* MdJ: Right.
* PAC: Agree with SC. My opinion is that this is a group decision. The charter is saying there should be WG liaison.
* eP: Regarding issue 70 being duplicate of 54: in 54, MC agreed that it is not an issue. We can mark it closed.
* SC: But MC followed up with strong -1 in the following comment.
* eP: Then ask MC to join the meeting. So, suggest closing the issue and invite.
* MdJ: Sound reasonable.

ACTION: PAC to close as duplicate of 54.

#### Consider marking DID out of scope
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/54

* VB: PAC, does this need further discussion?

ACTION: PAC to close and invite MC to join call.

#### Open session to discuss and promote Solid WG charter proposal
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/68

* VB: PAC, any status update on this?
* PAC: My understanding was about the breakout day in March. Unfortunately. Issue can be closed? Deferring to SC.
* SC: I don't mind closing it, but we could keep it open as a reminder for us to promote the charter outside the Solid CG. What steps are we taking to help/educate/work with others?
* PAC: Clarifies. As a reminder to promote the charter, I agree to keep it open.

#### What are the Solid User Stories?
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/67

* VB: Is this issue relevant for the charter proposal and should be left for discussion elsewhere? Does https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/69#discussion_r1522954948 partly address this concern?
* MdJ: We seem to have a pattern re MC opening issues and VB following.
* SC: I think VB was just following up MC's issues for the agenda. There is already some agreement in the referenced comment that what we have is adequate for the charter. Perhaps people should show up to some meetings and get group understanding rather than firing issues. We should point to the user stories repository to show that we thought about it; the quality of the repo is secondary.
* MdJ: Right, we have been working on it for years.
* eP: We probably should work more with UCs and user stories. We also have one with authz one. Definitely put work into organizing. https://solid.github.io/authorization-panel/authorization-ucr/#uc-client-constraints
* SC: This is a separate topic.

---

#### Tantek's feedback re 2 / 3 chairs
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/66

* VB: PAC, any status update on this?

#### Add Explainer
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/52

* VB: Can this issue be closed given reference to *an explainer* in https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/blob/004ba63e1b76715a4c72b5d6147c9eca6a9c7ee5/charter/index.html ?

#### Clarifying "Achieve Them" in Deliverables Section
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/45

* VB: If no proposal to improve, can we close this issue or do you prefer to wait for a PR?

#### Does the value come from the protocol or the applications?

URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/71

### New Work Item C2C: Project Management
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/641

### Partial contact information sharing
URL: https://github.com/solid/contacts/issues/5