Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
122 lines (102 loc) · 12.8 KB

2023-08-09.md

File metadata and controls

122 lines (102 loc) · 12.8 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

Solid world end of September

  • HZ: Could be Inrupt/Community one. If it would be a community one, what would the requirements? Just to make sure everyone is happy, let's discuss the rules of engagement.
  • VB: So you are asking what the requirement are correct?
  • HZ: Yes.
  • VB: I can only say what was decided: we did not say that there must be someone responsible from the team just that it might be nice. We did agree on that. That is what made an event community organised. Is that the team/group is involved.
  • SC: There's: solid/process#321, followup from ST meeting on newsletter and SW. Hope that partly addresses what's being asked as to the requirements.
  • H: Not involved on newsletter but I can follow up. My question is strictly about SW.
  • TBL: Discussion is partly in response to your comment on the PR putting about putting an event in events page. That is unnecessarily bureaucratic. Requiring ST to be part of the organization. That would not scale. ST is the highest level thing in this org, needs to keep track of what is going on. ST should always be aware of the website, but don't have to micromanage. Question about who prioritizes what is important but I don't think having a ST in the loop means that things happen slower. I think if things are too bureaucratic, then that'll take who knows how long.
  • VB: I don't think the intention is to add bureaucracy but this discussion almost started two years ago how the Solid Team should oversee some of the stuff: who decides what, who gets time on solid world etc.. insider transparency, and open process, unless someone deciding on their own if they get an email. Do agree that making things less bureaucracy is what we want but then claims to be organised but ST. claims a lot of things but in practise do not happen. if my neighbour starts a meetup tomorrow with St on it.. it is different than a situation.
  • TBL: can you point to an example
  • VB: SW is not organised by ST since I've been around but it says / on our vimeo account organised by solid project. should it be a community event or a private company event.
  • TBL: Jackson is on the team, MC'ing, and Kelly has done the organisation / video conference. The question is, do you feel that there should be a meeting and that we should be involved in?
  • VB: just coming to these meetings and some updates is enough. what applications we got and how we determined. takes a few minutes.
  • SC: That's more or less all that was requested. Some better awareness. On the point of agenda, there might be a bias in how the agenda is organized. If there was not, we would not have a dedicated slot for a particular organization to give updates on their products every time the event happens. No one else had that privilege. Agenda is being prepared by those with access to the email accounts, receiving or sending on behalf of the solid project. ST has no awareness of who is actually.
  • TT: I don't fully agree with what VB/SC said. From my standpoint, I thought as a ST we were in agreement that Solid world is taken care of by Kelly, Solid world coordinator role, and that meant that because of lack of time and motivation and volunteers we delegated responsibility to that coordinator including speakers, agenda, order, and so on. There were problems on the way, such as where is the list of people who apply? Why can't everyone see that? That hasn't been solved. I agree with that, but that was not an impediment to say this is an impediment to say this is a community event. Are we talking about stopping this as a community event?
  • SC: That was never the question. Meeting minutes from past meetings is about openness/transparency. Not about stopping.
  • TT: If transparency is not reached
  • d, what is the downside?
  • SC: Making sure the claim as to who organizes is more upfront.
  • TBL: Would you be happy to have a statement somewhere to say this is delegated to this organization?
  • TT: When from Inrupt you get into this role they don't tell you you have to be transparent. It is a communication problem much more than it is that Inrupt is at fault. When I was doing it, I didn't represent Inrupt but the community. And it still wasn't enough.
  • VB: No one is complaining that someone from Inrupt is organising this.. and this is recurring topic in ST and what's being asked is transparency, we want to hear about it and how it goes. if any objection, we can raise and how it happens. If we want to say this event is organised by Solid Project. I did say I wouldn't mind if it said "SW by Inrupt" but Tim objected to that. No one is asking for "reports". Transparency into the process.
  • TT: I think SC has other expectations.
  • TBL: SC said no other company has a constant slot. GraphMetrix did a big presentation. If Oz used the slot it might have been more as an MC rather than Inrupt product promoter. YEs, it's true Inrupt used Solid World to announce releases, but also GraphMetrix have. IF we don't have time to do it, we can delegate.
  • H: You make it sound like people asked to be included and they weren't. If you had asked to talk about dokieli you would have been included. I reject your arguments.
  • SC: Are we on the same page that if you look at past events agenda certain organization had a recurring slot there?
  • TBL: I do dispute that.
  • H: Me too.
  • TBL: Kelly or me spoke most of them and Oz, but you're suggesting that Oz as Inrupt product manager has a slot.
  • SC: Yes that's on past agendas and in video recordings. I will provide the data and we can compare the average speaking time between Inrupt and other speakers. This has to do with the bias.
  • TBL: They always reach out and you have never said you want to present dokieli.
  • SC: How do these people reach out to Hadrian? Which email account, phone conversation..?
  • H: People have to understand the reality of organizing an event. If people reach out and you have limited time you have to decide what goes in there. If you are claiming the process to request to present is not well defined I agree. We can improve that process. You say that because of the limited number of presenters we have had in the past, that this is a pattern that is wrong.
  • VB: I need to interrupt you. We are talking in circles. I just want to say: it would be more productive if we come up with actions. I am going to propose, Hadrian since you are organising this event, it would be an action item to you: how people can reach out to organisation of the event and how selection of content is made. Process of selection. Than we can agree, make improvements and move on to plan the September event. you would have to share this information at the meeting. We want to write down how decisions are made.
  • JZ: I like that idea. Seeing what the plan is for how people contact, what the process is, read updates for each SW as to how the process has been and who has applied.
  • TBL: I would like to see a webpage for SW and it would have the chronological ??? with links to products so that there's a writeup about each one, what they talked about. Like a summary. First requirement is a webpage where you can see what happened. We can also say Matrix chat is a place to discuss but that's too big. I don't think we should have a specific chat for SolidWorld.
  • TBL: We do?
  • VB: Yes!
  • SC: Aside: https://solidproject.org/events has a list. Links to specific SW events is wrong though.
  • SC: We suggested have a PR to propose an agenda, and have people add to that and that was not acknowledged. What you're saying is an open process to get people to request, that was proposed.
  • TBL: Since we talk about method to suggest things, please let it not be a PR.
  • SC: We could propose agenda in mailing list. Perhaps that is the lowest barrier.
  • VB: I have written 2 proposals. I want to see if you all agree. We can discuss it in the proposals:

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.

  • SC: Both of which are essentially the details that needs to be worked out it in solid/process#321 along with the comments/reviews that tries to spell things out.
  • VB: does that include how people can get involved to participate? Having a PR in itself is also on the table. We can work on that PR. Hadrian should comment there. And we can take it form there.
  • HZ: in theory yes in practice I have to figure out how to handle exceptions. One of the complicated things to chose is the topic od SW. March was about community. You have very little time to chose, if there is a disagreement in the community i am not sure how an agreement can be made in the community. I am not sure how that would be defined in the process. This is what i am thinking. I am going to come up with a proposal.
  • VB: make sure to read the PR.
  • HZ: I agree that it has to be done at some point. But that it was not done is not as a bad intention.
  • VB: and the second is that Hadrian will come to the meetings and give updates.
  • HZ: I agree.
  • TT: Maybe it's about time to consider that you want to go towards a more professionally organized event in an open source community that lacks resources for even updating a website, so I want you to think how realistic it is for Hadrian or me or whoever to take this on. If we're thinking about more professionally organized event maybe we can find financial resources in the future.
  • VB: What about my proposal makes it more burdensome?
  • TT: The time.
  • VB: But isn't that already being done?
  • TT: Well we have moved to more frequent meetings, then preparing agenda, topics, moderate... you have to motivate people. Then it's the whole updating website, then followup with video
  • VB: How does it change?
  • TT: Two or three more tasks are added and the person organising needs to deal with a lot. In worst case, if there is no consensus in the team, if this is an expectation, the downside is that potentially we need to postpone the event.
  • JZ: We've been having meetings about the scope of the Team and I thought that would be in the agenda. I made several different proposals to have a community group. Not the specifications but a community of practice groups. I have a PR. would appreciate some movement on this, because I am working with people and would like to have meetings, monthly event, etc. I'd like some feedback on that. I realize SW is important but there's
  • TT: and this is precisely why I thought that we, as a team, were ok to delegate the organisation of trust of organizing Solid World was supposed to reach. So we can focus on all the other topic.
  • TBL: It's a bit of an art to make SW. Not just about who gets represented. Sometimes there's a consistent theme. You try to keep it consistent.
  • VB: we only want to have communication flowing back to us: updates.
  • TBL: I agree but end of the day the element of putting together a good show deserves some respect.

meeting frequency

  • VB: how do we want it?
  • JZ: I'm in favor of getting done with the scope asap. It's been dragging on. I can't do anything until scope is resolved.
  • VB: I think the scope was PRed. Do we need more discussions on it?
  • JZ: I would like it to be an agenda item asap to make movement on the scope.
  • VB: we can discuss it next week. I do post agenda and like when people add agenda topics ahead of time.
  • JZ: I was under the impression it was in the last agenda and it is still open
  • VB: I will add to next week's agenda.
  • TBL: if a topic is open it should overflow to next meeting.
  • VB: some topics fall off the agenda unfortunately. I see what happened now. We put them back on.
  • VB: meetings will be weekly until we define the scope.