- Date: 2023-04-19T15:00:00Z
- Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-team
- Chat: https://gitter.com/solid/team
- Repository: https://github.com/solid/team
- Jackson Morgan
- Jeff Zucker
- Virginia Balseiro
- Alain Bourgeois
- Sarven Capadisli
- Michiel de Jong (he/him) (first half)
- Osmar Oivo
- Hadrian Zbarcea
- 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.
- Solid Code of Conduct, Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Ethics and Professional 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.
- Sarven
- name: text
- JM: Today's meeting will focus on scope of Solid Team: #35
URL: #35 (comment)
- JM: Right now the main dealer of this is DB. So, we should also have a vote on this.
- VB: Have talked with DB and not seems to be interested.
- OO: Inrupt's operations team would help the operations on behalf of the solid team. He would help solid team but wouldn't be the sole responsible person. It is the Inrupt's Ops team would be in charge of this, not just one individual.
- SC: Should Inrupt's Op's team pitch into maintaining Solid systems.
- JM: Proposal is for individuals in Solid Team to help.
- MJ: We can also help maintain as part of Ponder source.
- AB: I don't think it's a good idea for Inrupt's team to be the only maintainer of the data. I think the team has a responsibility.
- OO: I think what would be helpful here is what would be the current status quo and what the response would be. Originally it was Justin and Jackson doing the operations. And then we had a few issues and outages at which point we offered / Inrupt's operations team to solid team's resources. solidproject.org / solidcommunity.net. Current state of the world is that. If we want to change it and lets change. A bit confused about the proposal.
- JM: If we want to keep this at status quo method, I think it'd be good to recognise Inrupt's ops team as part of Solid Admin's.
- MJ: It'd be good to name individuals.
- JM: This is about domains..
- JZ: If we are going to decide how we are going to do for each, we won't get through. If we decide today for what we can work on, then we can.
- JM: +1
- MdJ: +1 to Solid Team running ops of domain names and web hosting
- VB: +1
- OO: +1
- JZ: +1
- AB: +1
- SC: +1 on the condition that making sure these individuals are reasonably available and reporting to ST. It is not under the condition we maintain it.
- OO: May not be reasonable that they attend the meetings.
- SC: We cannot go with status quo. Something needs to change.
- JM: We changed something, Inrupt has access to ???
- SC: Do we get reports?
- OO: ??? I don't think being a member of Solid Team and attending meetings should be prereq.
- SC: Some form of connection is important. Not a black box.
- AB: As individual we can't expect them to resolve the issue.
URL: #35 (comment)
-
JM: AB is currently the main contact. Is this for ST to continue?
-
JM: Any objections?
-
SC: No objections in the room.
URL: #35 (comment)
- JM: SOme of the more complicated thing to get done ... a lot are volunteered. There is a proposal for funding. I volunteer to write up proposal for NLnet.
- SC: I don't think NLNet is good long term as a funding source. But, it's not intended for ongoing operations, we can give it a shot.
- OO: What's this funding for?
- JM: Some of the other things on this list.. like updating the website, overhaul RDF / tutorials. THat's partially we have some volunteers but big projects we continue to talk about but nothing being done so to have an effort to push forward on it.
- AB: We also need some infrastructural funds. It was done with MIT. I don't know where we are or where we go. There is nothing in place to fund the infra costs.
- OO: I was under the impression that MIT is funding and would continue.
- JM: MIT would but not for funding source for labour.
- AB: My understanding was that MIT wouldn't forever.
- MJ: It would help with governance.. for example we have open collective for test suite .. which is transparent. re NLnet, we ask for personal title. It definitely makes sense to include as for solid budget. those are grants running for like 6 months. but with open collective, it can continue.
- JM: MIT is currently covering the costs. The question of this is for the labour of revamping the site, porting the site, having the webpages in RDF.
- SC: Before we do this we should develop a funding policy and making sure the funding is on ethical and transparent sources.
- JM: do: funding policy, open collective, nlnet
- JM: Opposition to funding policy?
- OO: I don't oppose to creating a funding policy. But I do oppose the main proposal. It is one time funding not-one-off projects. I have a long career doing this and this is scary because it ends up being more than we can chew.
- JM: These are one-off.
- OO: Not necessarily re moving the site to RDF. Also consider the maintenance costs. I'd caution against it. May end up with half-finished projects.
- OO: With the funding policy, we should include maintenance as well.
- JZ: This meeting: need to decide what we need to decide short and long term. So, the question of what we fund, we should choose for short-term. The fact that we don't have immediate funding for something. ???
- JM: There are things that I think that needs to be done by the Solid Team, e.g., website revamp. We need some solution to deliver that. We have been stuck on this because no one has resources for it. I don't want to continue in this limbo. "Here is an idea how... oh but.. is it the exactly right thing..." and then nothing ends up being done.
- SC: +1
- VB: +1
- JM: Do one before or after?
- SC: In parallel.
- OO: We can revisit this.
URL: #35 (comment)
- JZ: I don't foresee this as initial funding search. The reason I wanted as ST focus because there are a lot of things that cross-cut. How do specs do it? There are some boundaries.. and valid. As a whole the ST needs to have a handle on. It is an ongoing goal which from time to time I'll be coming in to ask questions and would like understanding that it is an effort that requires the group.
- JM: My impression is that this would require up front work to convert stuff to RDF-like process. The website maintaining single-source of truth for stuff, e.g., roles. That requires some initial engineering resources to stand up.
- JZ: Not sure if money alone will help. Having RDF would be suitable for everybody. Having a place to agree.
- OO: I ack the vocabs and stuff in order. I wonder if solidproject.org is the best place to do that? For me content is the main issue. As long as this move doesn't raise the bar for editing the content, .. if we can make it easy as possible,..
- JZ: I didn't want this to interfere with content. On the other hand, the more we commit to stuff that we don't need long term, e.g., jakyl, which makes it difficult to add new stuff. easy to update. so that's going to take up a lot of effort to do that. to the extent that we can do that. we need to stick to the current system. but in the long run, .. i see this more of a long term thing.
- VB: +1
- JM: As far as Solid-focused website, it would be done by things like dokieli or similar content-focused software even for people that are not familiar.
- JZ: That's exactly where I'm heading too. For devs without understanding RDF to contribute. TO me that's a challenge. That's going to take a while. We shouldn't switch over to a complete RDF until we have an editing system. Easier > Difficult.
- JM: This effort takes significant amount of labour to pursue. It would be something rewarding. Same code can go into other solid focused sites. Solidproject would be the first.
- JZ: I see it as part of a basis for strengthening orgs to use Solid.
- JM: Any objections to framing this as 'should the ST pursue the up front work for Solid-focused website platform.'
- SC: I don't have an objection to this. It feels like this isn't Solid team material. Just like SolidOS or the app development community, perhaps there's a taskforce that can do that as one of their projects, but unless people are committed to doing work on this, I'm not sure if it will get very far. I want this, but I'm not sure if the Solid team is the group that should be guiding this.
- OO: I second that. It feels like something if someone worked on and finished it and said "I have this proposal for moving SolidProject.org onto a platform," then it would make sense, but should the Solid team make this a priority or a goal in 2023. It might be something members of a team work on as a part of the community.
- JZ: I'm working on this and I will continue working on it no matter what this team decides. The important thing for me is that there are decisions about how we as a team use RDF. What vocabularies we use. These are all issues related to this that. Since the website covers everything we do.. I'm not asking the ST to take this on as a project but to recognise that needs Team input.
- SC: +1 to those points in particular. Jeff is asking for people to come forward with the bits that we are familiar with.
- JM: Do we have a timeframe? If outside of the ST?
- JZ: I can't commit to a particular time. Working steady for a couple of years.
- JM: Won't object but have some concerns over the process of getting things done in a timely manner and integrated. If there isn't a focus on this then it becomes a project that JZ is working on and seeking input from ST. It'd cool to have it done / dogfooding. But might be a good idea to have some kind of a schedule. If not part of ST, then outside / extra team, at least for the collaboration aspect I don't have an objection.
- AB: We need to have a group outside working on that. If there are needs that the ST support sometimes then they can.
URL: #35 (comment)
- JM: How does this officially work? Kelly.. but now Hadrian? Is the newsletter sent as responsibility of the team? how related to inrupt?
- OO: historically responsibility of the Mitzi/Marrelle/ community advocate / manager. since then the role sort of discontinued but we haven't filled it since Marralle. Kelly stepped into do logistics around it.. and Hadrian is picking up from an inrupt perspective / as developer relations. if we feel that Hadrian is not right to lead that then lets nominate someone else? up until now since Marralle left, we don't have anything formal. that said H's main job to dev relations.
- JM: That is a good way to frame it. Feel comfortable saying that.. newsletter is part of ST and Hadrian can.
- OO: That transition is happening re KO->H on the inrupt end.
- SC: I do have some concerns with the newsletter. This comes back to the status quo and to date, I don't know if there's a record of how the newsletter is published, so it's not particularly open-org published. If the newsletter is representing the activities of the Solid Team, but I believe it's written in a way that the Solid group has agreed on. I think there needs to be some drastic changes on how it's put together
- OO: I think that's fair, and the timing might be perfect to overhaul the procedure around it.
- OO: for example we figure out what the process should be.
- JM: Any objections to H is part of
- SC: Should the Solid Team send a monthly newsletter? And there are probably no objections. Who's doing it secondary point.
- VB: H needs to apply as member to ST. The transfer of role of K is another topic.
- JM: Any objection for newsletter and min of handling that later?
- JM: No it seems.
- JM: I need to drop off.
- JM: I can send out an invitation for next week.
URL: #35 (comment)
URL: #35 (comment)
URL: #35 (comment)
URL: #35 (comment)
URL: #35 (comment)
URL: #35 (comment)