Create meetings/2026-09-09.md

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 : <webId> solid:oidcIssuer <baseUrl>
+
+- 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
+