diff --git a/meetings/2026-09-09.md b/meetings/2026-09-09.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..cc909679 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/2026-09-09.md @@ -0,0 +1,210 @@ +# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly + +* Date: 2026-09-09T14:00:00Z +* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg +* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification + +## Chair + +* Theo + +## Present + +* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net) +* Roberto S.K. Breitman +* Christoph Braun - [uvdsl](https://github.com/uvdsl) +* [Matthias Evering](https://solidweb.me/testpro/) +* Tim Berners-Lee +* [Jesse Wright](https://jeswr.org/#me) +* Matthew Hasler + +### Regrets + +* + +## Scribe + +* Christoph Braun - [uvdsl](https://github.com/uvdsl) + +--- + +### 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. + +--- + +## Introductions + + * Matthew: Not completely new, but pretty new to Solid. I + * ... interested to build a Solid App, here to learn. + * Theo: Have you heard about the Practitioners Meeting? + * Matthew: I have not, thank you! + * eP: https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/solid/calendar/ + * Matthieu: Freelance developer, I am interested in [???], pretty new to Solid + +## Announcements + +### W3C Community Survey 2026 +URL: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FFGP6DL +https://hackmd.io/HPfevGswQOOFMi4--m-7WA?edit +* eP: Yearly survey, takes 5min. Please consider contributing. + +## Actions Review + +* eP to follow up on TPAC meeting with Social CG/WG: + * eP: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2026Sep/0002.html + * ... if others have thoughts or ideas please chime in + * ... let's see how we can coordinate there +* JW to follow up on TPAC meeting on Identity + * did not yet come around to comment under the Github issue + * I'll make sure to get it done right now +* Theo to review [PR#807](https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/807) ( see Topics ) + + +## Topics + +### Demos + +* no demo today + +## Add Public Keys section + +URL: https://github.com/solid/webid-profile/pull/130 + +* SC: Defer to 2026-09-16 meeting to discuss and demo (for 10-15 minutes) + + +### TPAC Session for Solid CG + +https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/issues/84 +https://github.com/w3c/tpac2026-meetings/issues/62 +https://www.w3.org/calendar/tpac2026/grid/ + +* eP: Please keep in mind registration fee, including on-line participations. [Fee waivers available](https://www.w3.org/news-events/tpac/2026/registration/#registration-fee-waiver) +* ... we have 3 slots reserved for Solid CG +* ... the idea was to have it more coordinate with other groups +* ... I understand most people would participate remotely like myself (where there is still a fee) +* th: Show of hands who is going to participate? +* ... I see Jesse, John Kirkwood, Pavlik, and myself + +#### Registered for remote + +* elf Pavlik + +#### Registered for in-person + +### [PR#807](https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/807) ( see Topics ) + + * th: I reviewed. I note that most partipants are in favour, with the exception of Pavlik who dissents. + * ... I think this is rough consensus. + * ... What is important to me to emphasise is that the draft is not set in stone. + * ... [something on changing things later] + * ... I think having discussions over the summer is difficult due to vacation. + * ... Is there anybody here who wants to have some time to look at it? + * ... Noting none. + * eP: I dont expect people to read through 100 comments + * ... I provided a one line summary of the change I request in the 817 issue + * th: thanks, Pavlik. + * CB: main point: saying this design is better than the other is not quite how PR operate in the CG. Each PR should be evaluate in its own merit: what does this mechanism provide and is that solving the problem or not. +* th: Do you mean that we should not have multiple PRs? +* CB: No, People should evaluate each design on their own merits +* eP: to clarify: Earlier in 807 I made a change request that recording and indicating was incorporated, but the second change request was not incorporated. So I created a second PR to the first PR. So it is not asking someone to incorporate what I want, but I did it myself such that that change to the proposed changed can be discussed. +* CB: my problem with that is that, the proposed change was already discussed in the PR beforehand, and explained why that design was not chosen. +* eP: How else do change requests work? Doing it myself is the better approach. +* CB: two issue: technical aspect, and how to solve. +1) is the design fine in your opinion, your concerns have been answered by the proponents. +2) second is how to express yourself. No need to open a PR in the new PR, CS state that better to open a new PR on the spec document directly, to be evaluated on its own merit. +... There is no obligation for your change request to be satisfied. +* eP: I woudnt call any proposal good or bad, there are tradeoffs. +* ... I am saying that my approach has tradeoffs +* ... [proceeds to explain technical trade offs] +* ... I would like to discuss what we are trading off. +* ... that is a discussion that can help inform the decision +* CB: I don't know where you get this "good or bad" from. Also, I don't understand why you want more discussion that hasn't been already discussed. My proposal: most ppl have put their comments, other can look at the thread and show concern, other way we merge and move on. +* eP: I am fine with merging with this one. I will just retarget my PR. +* ... I think it was partly my problem that we made it a dialog. +* ... I think we went to far to deep there +* ... I think we should have waited over the summer. +* ... I think we shuo +* CB: disagree that summer was bad time to talk. agree that dialogue was too long. but answering the raised questions can hardly be an issue. +* eP: I appreciate the time and effort put in. +* th: Any remarks from other people? +* ... hereing none, I invite people to read into the PR +* eP: Currently, all implementations become non-conformant +* CB: Where else do we start defining features if not in the ED? Where do we start discussing new features? I formally request that you write a summary comment and merge the PR. +* th: That was the plan. If people have opinions on it, I want to invite people to the decision process. The decision is to merge. +* ... As I said earlier, it is a PR to move things forward. +* ... Anything more on that subject? +* ... *crickets* + +ACTION: th to write a summary comment and let editor merge + + +### protected triple in profile card : solid:oidcIssuer + +- CSS issue https://github.com/CommunitySolidServer/CommunitySolidServer/issues/2239 +- CSS PR https://github.com/CommunitySolidServer/CommunitySolidServer/pull/2243 +- implemented in Pivot branch webid-guard +running on demo https://pivot-test.solidproject.org:3200 with Jessie codex branch +- JW: Joachim is not funded to work on CSS right now, so everything he does is his free time + ... I have been careful when opening PRs, which have been many + ... So, please watch out for that +- AB: On CSS, there are many PRs to be reviewed. +- ... solidcommunity.net was a bit broken, Jesse made many patches, CSS had to be forked, the patches were not yet reviewed for main CSS +- ... this is no sustainable +- ... What I would propose is to find an active maintainer, otherwise we will remain blocked +- ... Jesse made alot of effort to improve our fork of CSS, that is great +- ... I made a PR to protect the profile card, have a fork and deployed +- ... the one version running on test is the branch by codex/jesse +- JW: https://github.com/solid-contrib/pivot/tree/codex/solidcommunity-durable-deployment +- th: If I understand correctly, Jesse, the changes you made are in a branch in the pivot repo. +- JW: Yes, there are 4 PRs against the main CSS repo and there are [....] +- eP: I have a proposal: We have no topic for next OSTools meeting, how about making CSS the topic of next OST meeting? +- RB: We can role with that and push offline-first back since we did not hear back from them. +- AB: Jesse did most of the work. +... I prefer to work on pivot and the main CSS instead of the fork of CSS. + ... I think forking CSS will result in bigger differences between the two CSS flavours. + ... I dont think that we will resovle it in one meeting because it is a long-term issue, not speaking of money but time and mind to work on it. +- th: JW, are you interested in bing in that meeting? +- JW: Yes, can be there +- AB: next week is noted. + +ACTION: RB to announce next OST meeting topic: CSS and sustainable development + +### Delegation + +* Mattieu: My proposal revolves around delegation ... +* eP: There are different approaches to delegation +... What approach are you talking about, do you come with a use case? +* Matthieu: The approach is to scope correctly, that is, that you cannot delegate a wrong scope to be sure the agent does not elevate privilig +* CB: don't understand what you mean by scope, curious to see what technical solution you have in your head. Scope is OAuth token ? something different ? +Matthieu: I don't have a solution yet, maybe tokens are part of the solution. +* eP: You want to narrow the scope, right? +Matthieu: Both approaches do it differently. +* CB: in general not possible in deleagation by definition, not possible to elevate priviledge. If that was possible the whole system is fundamentally broken. + +### Open PRs + +https://github.com/solid/specification/pulls + +* eP: we should do some cleanup + + + +## Actions +ACTION: th to write a summary comment and let editor merge +ACTION: RB to announce next OST meeting topic: CSS and sustainable development + +## Decisions +