-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Agenda for 2024-11-20 CG meeting (#697)
* Agenda for 2024-11-20 CG meeting * Updated minutes * chore: add Jesse to attendee list --------- Co-authored-by: Hadrian Zbarcea <hadrian@inrupt.com> Co-authored-by: Jesse Wright <63333554+jeswr@users.noreply.github.com>
- Loading branch information
3 people
authored
Nov 23, 2024
1 parent
5d2cbe3
commit 88175e3
Showing
1 changed file
with
135 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ | ||
| # W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly | ||
|
|
||
| * Date: 2024-11-20T14:00:00Z | ||
| * Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg | ||
| * Chat: https://matrix.to/#/#solid_specification:gitter.im | ||
| * Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification | ||
| * Status: Published | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Present | ||
| * Hadrian Zbarcea | ||
| * [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net) | ||
| * [Rahul Gupta](https://cxres.pages.dev/profile#i) | ||
| * TimBL | ||
| * Grace Elcock | ||
| * [Ted Thibodeau](https://github.com/TallTed/) (he/him) ([OpenLink Software](https://www.openlinksw.com/)) | ||
| * Maxime | ||
| * Jesse Wright | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| ## 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 Conduct](https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/) | ||
| * 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 | ||
|
|
||
| * Grace | ||
|
|
||
| ### Introductions | ||
|
|
||
| * No introductions | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Topics | ||
|
|
||
| ### Virginia stepping down as co-chair of the Solid CG | ||
| URL: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2024Nov/0008.html | ||
|
|
||
| * Thanks to Virginia for her service! | ||
| * HZ: Would like to thank Virginia for her service — note emails of congratulations | ||
| * TBL: All grateful to Virginia for her work, not just as co-chair, but in other roles too. | ||
| * RG: +1 | ||
| * EP: Would like to thank Virginia. Virginia is one of the editors of the [WebID Profile spec](https://solid.github.io/webid-profile/), so we need to check whether Virginia would like to stay as an active editor or be moved to a former editor. | ||
| * eP: https://solid.github.io/webid-profile/ | ||
|
|
||
| ACTION: Hadrian to clarify that with Virginia | ||
|
|
||
| * Hadrian will update on LWS and then decide what to do re WebID in context of that problem | ||
|
|
||
| ### Next steps | ||
|
|
||
| * Election of new co-chair — need to decide as a group what to do. HZ has opinions but would like to discuss with MdJ first (other co-chair). Will make a proposal next week. | ||
| * RG: When does the current co-chair term end? | ||
| * HZ: Unsure how the long term is — EP checked charter and thinks it is 2 years, but needs to verify. | ||
| * EP: Idea for JW to be a co-chair as has a primary job to work on Solid. If JW was willing, would nominate Jesse. | ||
| * RG: Reading the charter — 'at any given time there may be up to 3 co-chairs; each cycle defines a 2 year service. In first year, all seats will be up for election, then election for any vacancies', i.e., suggest a regular election cycle for one seat. | ||
| * Continues reading... 'the remaiming chairs may nominate a co-chair for the remaining seat... If the chairs do not take any action, then the seat will be up for election in the next cycle...' | ||
| * TBL: So two remaining co-chairs could agree on a co-chair. | ||
| * HZ: Would nominate EP as was next to be co-chair previously. | ||
| * MdJ joined — HZ updated on conversation and candidates for co-chair (Jesse and Pavlik) | ||
| * JW: EP would you be interested in taking on role of co-chair? | ||
| * EP: Thank you HZ for trust and confidence. Always happy to help but my situation is less stable. We need stability and continuation. Just finished a project with NLnet Foundation — unsure on future project and how much time can dedicate to Solid. | ||
| * MdJ: First thought would be JZ as he is doing Solid practitioners and now core spec gone to WG anyway. Would make sense to move CG closer to practitioners. | ||
| * HZ: Likes that idea. | ||
| * EP: Jeff would be second person I would think of — the CG call would need to join later (to allow JZ to join) | ||
| * HZ: JW, would you be willing to take on interim role as Co-chair? | ||
| * JW: Yes, happy to take on interim role, but would endorse JZ or EP for the role | ||
| * TBL: When this chair was up for election and after the election closed, he then started to chair/facilitate Solid practitioners so may feel that would take up chairing energy | ||
| * ACTION: HZ to reach out to JZ to see if he would be interested (and others might as well) | ||
| * HZ: MdJ, how do you feel about JW as interim co-chair? | ||
| * MdJ: Why do we need an interim? | ||
| * HZ: Also an option — up to the chairs if they appoint an interim or just wait for elections (in next 1–2 months) | ||
| * MdJ: Can start to seek nominations, etc., now, and if soon, would reduce need for an interim | ||
| * MdJ: Just means we chair a meeting every 2 or 3 weeks. Wouldn't want to do it for a year, but if just for next few weeks then fine. Preference would therefore be no interim co-chair and other preference to hold elections now vs waiting | ||
| * RG: Last election ended Dec 15th (i.e., when appointments were made) — people don't have to rotate annually; just if there is a slot, then election would be annual. Suggest can start nomination now, with vote Dec 7–8, then result Dec 15 | ||
| * EP: Think it takes some time, e.g., 1 rep per facilitation — last time took 2 months, so need to start today | ||
| * MdJ: HZ and I can do this quickly | ||
| * EP: Likely to take less time and have fewer candidates. | ||
| * HZ: Perhaps can be more flexible with election process. Is there a need for secret ballot? | ||
| * RG: 1. if more than one person is nominated, then would like a proper election to happen. When we had a nomination call, 5 people put up their hands. 2. One concern is use of W3C STV — when analysed results and why EP didn't get elected, it was selecting 3 best candidates from top choices vs selecting best 3 candidates from top 3 choices. Suggest having the process revised. | ||
| * HZ: Definitely not in favour of heavy process but if community wants that then will do it | ||
| * Ted joined — HZ updated we are discussing process for elections | ||
| * EP: While important to have process, it could be light-weight. If we stick to charter, that will prevent people having an issue. Anyone interested in taking responsibility can put candidates all in call with minutes, etc., and then can agree who the best person is for the community. | ||
| * HZ: Would be happy with this. | ||
| * MdJ: Agree with EP — let's today start a nomination period for two weeks; during that time, anyone can make a public post to the mailing list to nominate themselves; then, efficient election after that. Don't want to count on only one person self-selecting. Also see RG's point about only looking at first choice. In other contexts, have ranked candidates and points based on ranking. Two weeks for nomination, plus two weeks for election. | ||
| * HZ: Suggest discussing process next week after starting two week nomination process | ||
| * EP: Fine to have first call for everyone to self-nominate, but practical to suggest that after that everyone have a call with people who self-nominated to see if consensus can be reached to skip formal election. | ||
| * HZ: Lets talk about this next week (already mentioned) | ||
| * JW: 1. assume HZ or MdJ will put email out to public mailing list (yes); 2. rather than separate call, is it possible for Solid CG call to give 15 mins to this discussion (think in following week and week after when we know more)? | ||
| * HZ: Think we have consensus | ||
|
|
||
| ACTION: Nomination period to be opened via email today; talk next week re process | ||
|
|
||
| * HZ: Based on conversation, will skip interim as only a few weeks. Can revisit but as of now decided not go to interim chair — any objections? (none) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Contributing to LWS use cases | ||
| URL: https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues | ||
| URL: https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/blob/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/use-case.md | ||
|
|
||
| * HZ: The LWS WG is hoping that anybody interested could add use cases as issues to be added to use case document. Process is open; HZ will take care of existing use cases, but if you would like to see any others captured by LWS WG, please add as issues | ||
| * EP: Focusing on access delegation and would like to capture use-cases — few variants, e.g., delegation, revoking access, etc. — do we prefer granular use cases or one comprehensive use case? | ||
| * HZ: So happens I am editor for use-cases so can't give an answer — don't mind doing extra work, so choose what would make sense. Personally would prefer more granularity. | ||
| * EP: Would start with 1 variant and then can pull out into separate ones. Can take it and work from there. Activity Pub may have some. Will work with them to ensure they are submitted. | ||
| * HZ: Don't worry about duplicates — will take care of it | ||
| * TBL: Now we have some issues, I can look at them. Should be able to do strava, linkedin, strava — should be able to do NHS application. Basically, a lot of exercises with a lot of functionality, etc., but should all be able to work on a solid pod. Does that work for a use-case? As editor of use-cases, HZ, do you want things at lots of different levels? | ||
| * HZ: We discussed we want to close the first round of use cases by end-of-year, so can process and use them. That does not mean we will then no longer accept use cases. LWS will use requirements to create the spec. There is no use case doc yet, so use issues for now to create new use cases. In Mon meeting, PA suggested compiling use case doc early and often. | ||
| * TBL: The fact that requirements will be developed from use cases means question is answered. | ||
| * HZ: Want to have first draft of use cases to allow group to continue with requirements | ||
| * RG: Take TBL question further — there are use cases where want to use something with Solid or patterns which serve a family of use-cases. There is one template and not clear how to communicate patterns (e.g., notifications is a pattern useful for many use cases) | ||
| * HZ: Difference between user stories and use cases. User stories might be more diverse but will be distilled into use cases — that is planned | ||
| * EP: My POV, use cases should describe the problem, but should not use terms like 'web sockets' — can talk about real time updates. The context can be important here. | ||
| 1. app on a web server and low frequency updates (here webhooks would be an answer) | ||
| 2. app on user device running behind nat etc (websockets or streaming http responses) | ||
| 3. app on mobile device which gets suspended for battery saving (pretty much only webpush) | ||
| * MdJ: The term "requirements" can be used as product requirements but also used for spec requirements. Need to be aware of two meanings of "requirements". | ||
| * HZ: Agree, we mean protocol requirements. We want to future proof the protocol to be able to seamlessly support other protocols developed in the future (e.g. for identity) | ||
|
|
||
| * (some minutes missed at end) | ||
|
|
||
| ### Handling `xsd:string` and `rdf:langString` in shapes | ||
| URL: https://github.com/solid/data-interoperability-panel/issues/322 | ||
|
|