Solid World Organization: timeline of discussions and proposal to assemble new organizing team

[VirginiaBalseiro]

I have put together a report about the situation of Solid World (SW), past discussion, decisions that were made, and where we stand today.

The following is a timeline of the discussions around Solid World in the Solid Team (ST) over 2 years:

Date	Details
2021-11-10	Initial discussion about SW agenda transparency and organization by ST
2022-01-12	Second check on SW process and transparency
2022-04-13	Third check on SW process and transparency
2022-11-09	Decision to keep SW as ST organized event
2023-07-11	Proposal to add SW to ST scope
2023-05-03	ST member being appointed to SW organization
2023-05-09	Proposal to create SW and newsletter team
2023-06-26	PR for previous event gets merged based on the understanding that ST would be involved in the next event
2023-08-09	Assigned ST member's re-commitment to report to ST about SW and ACTION to work on PR 39
2023-09-20	September event gets organized as Inrupt-led event without ST's consent
2023-10-11	ST discussion about September SW event
2023-12-13	Assigned ST member's re-acknowledging the PR detailing SW process

Despite all this history and recent discussion and agreements, the 2023-09 SW event was unilaterally decided (by the ST member currently assigned to SW organization) to be organized as a private company event, without running it by the ST (or even informing us). This is, in my opinion, a blatant display of disregard for collaborative decision-making and a deviation from the principles of transparency and openness that we have been advocating for.

Since we have decided and re-confirmed on multiple ocassions that we want to keep SW as a ST event, also in line with Tim's wishes, I believe we should have another organizer replacing the currently assigned, since they've not communicated or collaborated with the ST on this subject. And more importantly, ignoring a decision made by the ST and going directly against it, unilaterally and without informing the ST, is in my personal opinion a serious violation of process and trust.

Furthermore, I have personally reached out to the assigned member to offer help with these tasks and my message went ignored.

As it has been discussed numerous times, if an organization would like to contribute to the organization of the event, and that is very much appreciated, they can do so in collaboration with another member of the ST who would like to volunteer to help. We can even ask the community at large for more volunteers.

PROPOSAL:

• Make a wider public call to assemble a new organization team for Solid World - "for the community by the community" - towards resolving Created Solid World and Newsletter Teams process#321

[jeff-zucker]

I would like to make a proposal that attempts to meet concerns on both sides. I suggest these responsibilities in regard to Solid World. It can be billed as a joint venture between Inrupt and the Team with it clear to all who is responsible for which part. And it does not involve the Team in Inrupt's part of the initiative but gives the Team a voice.

• Inrupt
  • provides PR, calendaring, zoom-like spaces, video recording, and support services for all sessions
  • dedicates 10 minutes of each Solid World to Team News presented by a Team member
  • sets 1 of the four sessions as MC'd by the Team with speakers selected by the Team
  • does whatever it wants with the other 3 sessions but remains open to suggestions
• The Team
  • provides a speaker for the Team News section of SW
  • provides an MC and speakers for one of the quarterly sessions
  • makes SW videos available on or via links from solidproject.org

[csarven]

I agree with parts of Virginia's and Jeff's proposals but some clarifications needed. For instance:

• Who has legal ownership or authority over SW?
• Who holds control over its culture aspects?
• What are the barriers for ST to organise or co-curate agenda, convene meeting, publish records at solidproject.org?

While I find Jeff's proposal well-intended and constructive, I also find there is merit to Virginia's proposal striving "for the community by the community". I support the idea that ST should lead curating the event however I do not believe that a separate organising team would be necessary.

If ST aims to facilitate and amplify news from the Solid community and has limited resources to lead, convening meetings and publishing recordings shouldn't require significantly more effort. Some of the work is one-offs or automated. ST should either take full responsibility for the initiative or let it go - anyone can run their own Solid show/event under their own banner, as always. On this matter, ST should work with individuals to co-curate the event. So, get the word out there. Involving additional organising parties could introduce unnecessary overhead. If it isn't feasible now, come back to it in the future when there's more motivation and resources.

Some perspective: the Solid CG (as with countless other groups out there) has been convening weekly or more frequently for several years, maintaining an open and transparent agenda that incorporated topic proposals from both CG participants as well as guests; with publicly accessible minutes; interactive sessions including co-editing text, sharing demos/screencasts, pre-recordings, joint events with other groups, and so forth. It is a real mystery why SW convening periodically for an hour, could not implement or communicate an open process "over 2 years".

Here are some points that, in my opinion, SW (or a similar initiative) should do:

• If the term "Solid World" can't be used, move on and bikeshed a new name: Solid News, Solid Universe..
• Prioritise inclusivity and the observance of the Solid Code of Conduct, ensuring alignment with the Principles and Values.
• Work in the open and communicate openly on the agenda:
  • "Ensure that socially beneficial organizations and underrepresented voices are part of the target audience and highlighted in the content."
  • Public requests: open PRs and have alternative methods move content towards a PR.
  • Private requests: make it clear to the submitter that the chosen method is private to Solid Team. This content should still make its way into a PR but can be kept private if a talk is not accepted.
• Talks can be pre-recorded and/or live (and published later). Talks should be linkable and archivable.
• Encourage presenters/authors to license their talks with CC-BY or CC0. Apply the same licensing for the entire event.
• Avoid dumping video recordings at third-party services like Vimeo. Host the audio/video on a Solid server and make them available from solidproject.org. (We want to convince the world about Solid but can't host the org's or community's talks?)
• Eventbrite does what exactly? No one needs to get tickets to join a call or track the event from afar. The Solid Project has its own website (with an events page). Put up a Web feed and/or a vCalendar that people can subscribe to.
• Support open-source communities for video conferencing instead of requiring users to use or install sketchy services/tools.
• Rotate moderators (see above whose voices the project should amplify).
• Facilitate open chat during the call to encourage discovery among participants. Closing off interactions defeats the purpose of a live webinar, and might as well only publish pre-recorded talks then. This goes against the principles of the Solid community, which values openness and inclusivity.
• Clearly establish whether individuals have consent to speak on behalf of any person or group.

[jeff-zucker]

Who has legal ownership or authority over SW?

The Solid Team would hold ownership and authority over the SW events it hosts and Inrupt would have ownership and authority over the events it hosts.

Work in the open and communicate openly on the agenda

If the Team is hosting an event, yes that Team member should communicate openly with other Team members about the agenda.

"Ensure that socially beneficial organizations and underrepresented voices are part of the target audience and highlighted in the content."

Again, the Team will have complete control over what it hosts. We can encourage Inrupt to follow those principles but we should also enact those principles ourselves.

Public requests ... Private requests

Who on the Team is volunteering to review these requests? Until we have someone to take lead on this, I think we should not pretend to be a clearing house for speakers. Instead, I think we should have Team members organize events based on existing engagement with the community. The Practitioners will choose amongst themselves speakers for a SW on socially beneficial apps. The new UI/UX group might have a SW dedicated to their libraries. The CG might have a Solid World bringing out concerns of their members. These would be focused SW and coming from people working in the areas and the selection process could be up to the Practitioners, or the UI/UX group, or the CG, not from the Team itself. But since there are reps of all of those groups on the Team, collaboration would be easy and expected.

Talks can be pre-recorded and/or live (and published later). Talks should be linkable and archivable.
Encourage presenters/authors to license their talks with CC-BY or CC0. Apply the same licensing for the entire event.

Agree.

Avoid dumping video recordings at third-party services like Vimeo. Host the audio/video on a Solid server and make them available from solidproject.org.

Agree, but until solidproject.org is on a Solid server and has the ability to serve video, it's a moot point.

Eventbrite does what exactly? No one needs to get tickets to join a call or track the event from afar. The Solid Project has its own website (with an events page). Put up a Web feed and/or a vCalendar that people can subscribe to. Support open-source communities for video conferencing instead of requiring users to use or install sketchy services/tools.

Generally agree but I am not volunteering to do any of those things, are you? Until that happens, I am fine with encouraging Inrupt to move in these directions but letting them make their own decisions about it. There are many other places we don't dogfood, there is no reason to single SW out in particular.

Rotate moderators (see above whose voices the project should amplify).
Facilitate open chat during the call to encourage discovery among participants.

Yes.

Clearly establish whether individuals have consent to speak on behalf of any person or group.

Do you do that in the CG? How? Do you contact organizations and ask "does X have the authority to speak for you?"

In terms of the event as a whole, we should clearly state that SW is co-sponsored by ST and Inrupt with each responsibe for the individual SW events it hosts and clearly label all mentions of each SW event as to which organization will or did host it.