Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
132 lines (100 loc) · 12.2 KB

2023-10-11.md

File metadata and controls

132 lines (100 loc) · 12.2 KB
Raw

Solid Project: Solid Team

Present

Announcements

Meeting Recordings and Transcripts

  • 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.

Participation and Code of Conduct

Scribes

  • Virginia

Introductions

  • name: text

Topics

Updates on action items

ACTION: JM to create one or more pinned post about it on Solid forum to connect businesses/contractors/jobs.

  • JM: I am a bit over capacity to participate in the team for a large amount of time. I already promised to do these things, and I can go through this list and do these things. Noticed the scope of the team document, if accepted that means anything I have responsibility for, we should determine someone to take up those. Wrt this item, I will create a post in the forum. Made progress on social media account.
  • VB: I can take over your scope PR and make the requested changes.
  • JZ: JM, are you moving out of the solid team for the foreseeable future?
  • JM: Yes, given the amount of things I have I don't think I'd be able to continue.
  • JZ: Sorry to hear and thanks for all the work.
  • OO: We should do a review of all the stuff on your plate and hand it off. Passwords, etc.
  • JM: Biggest thing is auth access: digital ocean, domain names, hosting, GH, etc.
  • OO: Let's make sure more than one person has access.
  • TBL: Solid administrators.
  • JM: Mainly Justin and TBL.

ACTION: VB to create an issue to gather feedback on FAQ

URL: solid/solidproject.org#801

ACTION: JM to find out who has access to all the emails

  • JM: Twitter account not sure who has access.
  • JM: I will revise async. I have access to reddit, i think also twitter. I'll come back offline and all that stuff will be accessible via 1Password.
  • SC: Whoever is still posting is not engaged with Solid Team directly or indirectly.
  • SC: Should be resolved in #39 as part of wide-clean-up/reconfirming/reassigning access to stuff.
  • SC: Anyone here has access to twitter?
  • OO: I think Kelly and Marrelle were the ones with access.
  • JZ: Arne might have access.
  • VB: I don't think so. I think he has to reddit. We can check.
  • OO: I don't think reddit is associated with solid project.
  • VB: The account is posting regularly.
  • OO: Kelly has confirmed he has access to twitter and posts on it on a regular schedule automatically. He can stop the posts if we would like.

ACTION: Virginia go through each repo in Solid Conrtib and see if they have a code of conduct. If they do, open an issue informing them that we are swapping to the centralized code of conduct.

ACTION: SW organizer (Hadrian) to contribute to PR: solid/process#321 with more detail on process for submissions/selection process for Solid World.

ACTION: SW organizer (Hadrian) to give updates on organization and selection in Solid Team meetings.

  • VB: The last SW was organised by Inrupt and stated as such at least on the events page. Question is if next one is if as a team this is a team organised or determine that it is an Inrupt event going forward. If community/team organised we need Hadrian to follow up on those things (PR).
  • TBL: If Solid Team makes sure all things, to meetups and so on, it is a broad thing. So we could say yea, SW is part of the Solid ecosystem, and ST is 'happy to delegate to Inrupt' so that seems reasonable. If someone else volunteers we are happy to chance in the future.
  • JZ: I'd like to say that although I appreciate working with Inrupt and have no problem, there's a problem of perception in the community raised by a number of people. People questions whether it is really an open source project. There was a Formal Objection to WG saying it should be called the Inrupt WG. While I don't believe that, I need to defend that.
  • OO: We can go either way. Last time there was a lot of objection saying this is not a solid thing but an inrupt thing. That said we can definitely go back. The discussion we have to have is Hadrian is the main person in charge of SW.
  • VB: Want to clarify that we have several meetings dating more than a year ago that this is a community and Project organised event. That was agreed and we never went back to change to Inrupt organised event. Re without informing the ST that this is being organised by Inrupt. I can go either way, but if we go with Solid Projetc / ST organised we need follow up on action items and tasks. Several meetings/discussions detailing where these things are coming from and we all agreed, at least no objections to it being reasonable. So, I don't know why OO .
  • OO: This was during with JM.
  • VB: I was using this agenda for months based on the decisions - didn't miss a meeting.
  • OO: There are two threads with a whole discussion on ST thing or Inrupt thing.
  • VB: TBL did say he wants it as a Team thing. Hadrian asked what the expectations were and we had these ACTION items and no follow up / on record.
  • TBL: VB you are saying: It is a solid community event and nothing on record delegating to anybody else.
  • VB: Yes.
  • OO: Not sure what happened then.
  • HZ: We all want it to be a community event, we can have it organized by the community or delegated. A lot of this was done in public on the gitter list. Somebody says it wasn't inclusive/transparent. But Jeff was the anchor and he had a talk. The reason it was advertised as Inrupt event was reluctance previously ,the PR that was rejected. To avoid that kind of problem. Finding agenda, etc. takes time. Very hard to find speakers.
  • VB: Then the PR on SW process is still hanging. The event was not going to be delegated to inrupt and we had two action items and none said that.
  • HZ: Reason is that Inrupt wanted to avoid issues as last time. There is no process for people to submit...
  • VB: That was your action item.
  • HZ: Didn't have time for that. We decided this time around.
  • VB: I understand you decided that but why wasn't the ST informed in that.
  • HZ: In what way?
  • VB: The decision of hte ST was with the minutes and this is an event organised by ST and that you had to report to ST and do the PR. That didn't happen and the event was delegated to Inrupt and ST wasn't informed.
  • JZ: She is asking a very basic question. We decided this is a solid team event, now it is an inrupt event and the team was not informed.
  • HZ: VB says the team was not informed. There is no process for that.
  • VB: Meetings, chats.
  • JZ: Yes, I moderated the last SW but I wasn't consulted as to whether the topic would be ??? I don't feel my participation was anything other than a figure head. There's a Solid Team chat, put there. At least lket us know and have a say.
  • HZ: We know how the comm went. You are right you weren't formally consulted. But you could have suggested. Once you say something on the list you have to commit. Everything VB wants I am working on. Shortcuts were taken.
  • SC: This PR was made in May, there's been at least 2 SW since then. There was plenty of time to chime in in various ways, and report on how the PR is going. If you're unable to do by yourself, the team is here for you to help and delegate to other people to take over that action. This is not about who owns this event. If it's a tam thing we have basic expectations: transparent, communicate, work with the team. There hasn't been misunderstandings and there have been 5 months to move things forward. The team is expecting that this is addressed. If it's an Inrupt thing, then it needs to be clearly an Inrupt event and not speak on behalf of the solid project/community group. We're not expecting very detailed conversations, just some level of engagement. If Inrupt hasn't decided whether to own or not, go back and decide or we take over and we decide. There are certain expectations. That's it.
  • JM: There's a lot of fault assigned to Hadrian that should be assigned to me. When SC brought up problems I wrote something in the scope of the team. In the meantime what we said is if it doesn't go through the transparency standard... Inrupt should make clear it is an inrupt event.
  • VB: We had an agreement about the PR.
  • JM: Regardless, this has been discussed a lot.
  • TBL: SC, you said the team will take this over, if Inrupt is not accepting the job. We don't have resources. I agree there was miscommunication. Group can look into finding a subcommittee running SW, but who's gonna sign up for that.. I hope we can go on.. it is important to make clear Inrupt is involved. Solid website should link to SW. I am concerned this group has the attitude that if we ST have review and control over it, then it is a solid project thing. meanwhile i give a keynote and i would like that to be a solid project video.
  • SC: When CG says we want to have a WG is because we understand that we play by W3C rules and processes in place. I have no issue with Inrupt doing this. We are asking that things are clarified so we agree to those. We took it on good faith that they would be done.
  • VB: The main reason we are doing this so that the process of submition is transparent and that's why we (ST) is involved. On Aug 9th, HZ asked what these actions were, and reached out to you to offer help if you needed with these action items and you never responded to that.
  • OO: There is a comm failure. It should've been communicated that change is made. Lets ack apology or won't happen again or whatever. Larger things to more formal agenda: I can paint to many PRs open to long time which is a larger ST issue. We don't hold ourselves accountable. Something was agreed to and that wasn't done. So we kind of lost the urgency around this stuff. Okay, PR is assigned to me, how serious to me.. There are a couple of things in this agenda (assign/for Kyra) but we didn't get to. I think people are getting too comfortable with things being open or accountable. We should acknowledge that. For me, the reviewing thing is, ST owns a lot of stuff. I would like a more formal, who are the required reviewers and approvers. If folks aren't working on the thing, then pointing is not constructive. Perhaps subset or all of it needs to approve things. Right now, it is pseudo-random about reviewing. It leads to frustration working on stuff.
  • AB: One of the problems is that Inrupt is too present. The solution may be to just give money. I don't like the idea of just receiving money. But for example migration NSS>CSS, there is a proposal made by Ruben, and Ruben is working for inrupt...
  • JM: Ruben's script is self-funded.
  • OO: Thread got closed. The 10k has been rescinded due to lack of interest and lack of clarity of the future of CSS
  • AB: Question is how we can share and have inrupt more in background. One of the problems in Open Source is resources. If those are taken by a company you have frustrating results. When Inrupt decided to use ACP and not WAC there was a break, and this has never been resolved.
  • SC: Let's not pick on inrupt.
  • VB: Let's have special meeting for KA's topic.
  • JZ: I was going to suggest we take over KA's topic but a little late. In favor of special meeting for it. In favor of foundation that receivs money instead of inrupt directly. and then inrupt should donate to that.
  • JM: When I started the process of scope of team it was because the team was very reactionary to things instead of future focused. Same philosophy needs to be maintained that we need to focus on moving things forward instead of litigating the past. It is unproductive.