Provide more context around items under editorial review

[justinwb]

Creating this issue to track a comment @Mitzi-Laszlo raised in solid/process#95.

What would be great to include as well is:
the aim/ scope of the specification
the aim/ scope of the roadmap
the aim/ scope of the documentation
the respective repositories to which proposals in the form of pull requests to the specification, roadmap, and documentation should be made
the aim of each repo and how it connects to this process

Am tracking this separately since it would expand quite a bit the scope of the #95 when it's near the end of the review cycle. Any work towards this can go in new branch / pull.

[justinwb]

Note that in the latest commits under pull #95, each repository across specification, roadmap, and documentation is broken out with a short description. For the specification, primary documents (as they exist right now) have also been specifically identified. As more emerge, they'll be updated.

I think then, that this covers:

• the respective repositories to which proposals in the form of pull requests to the specification, roadmap, and documentation should be made

The remaining question then is whether these other points aren't better left to the individual repositories to explain:

• the aim/ scope of the specification
• the aim/ scope of the roadmap
• the aim/ scope of the documentation

This point maybe is somewhere in the middle:

• the aim of each repo and how it connects to this process

[justinwb]

@Mitzi-Laszlo Based on the description of repositories that now lives in editors.md, have we made progress towards any of these points?

[Mitzi-Laszlo]

This takes care of defining the repositories for each #83