Re: W3C Solid Community Group Call

Yes.

I've read: https://github.com/solid/information/blob/master/solid-team.md and
i want to see a resolution made about its contents.

IN particular; i'm interested in seeing this resolution define whether the
description of 'who are solid experts' considered to be complete, or
otherwise.

I will not describe my thoughts when i reviewed the document other than to
say, deep sadness was felt over an awareness of the personal sacrifice made
by many over many years that appeared to be entirely dishonoured, without
any sense of accountability by the form of this instructional document.

There are differences between dignity and privacy that must be addressed;
perhaps firstly, by acknowledging there's people who've been working on
this stuff much longer than any ROI (or income) calc provided allowances to
support; and perhaps, they deserve a little respect for having done so,
imho.

seems all very political in nature, which may in-turn also need to be
addressed by W3C depending on the considerations that relate thereafter
about 'what is solid', given the illustrations provided, et.al.

In consideration also; apache is amongst many tenants who may well be able
to leverage off existing work in what may be considered a better way.

It is my deep hope, that i see a pathway that dignifies those such as TimBL
(amongst others) by ensuring they're able to be the leaders for solving
problems like widespread web-slavery, amongst the many big problems worthy
of ensuring those with heavy responsibilities are known to be instrumental
to solving.  This in-turn, is a mutual form of contract, like the magna
carta after buildings were knocked down surrounding the city of london /
holborn; which in-turn talks a sophisticated story, about provenance.

in the old days, they speak of 'worshipful' persons - noting, some of this
continues on.

My Prime Minister is noted to have made a statement today: listed -
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-05/scott-morrison-gives-winx-biography-to-queen/11179646


It seemly echo's some of my statements, with particular regard for ethical
finance related issues in that money must serve and not govern[1].  Where
history is erased, the means for any form of beneficial compensation for
wilful historical acts; is also, conveniently or otherwise, erased.

If Solid is about a 'reality engine' and not the production of a 'reality
distortion engine' then it needs to make some very serious choices, imho.

as such - i consider the statement about 'solid' 'experts' to be a
lightening-rod to this problem.  I would vastly prefer, not to sort it out
myself.  seems, wrong.  I understand there's a bunch of 'entrepreneurship'
lessons and related BS but some years on, we're still defining tools for
smart-ups[2] and 'smart' is what we want to define here.

I will likely not attend the call, but i would like the matter of this list
of 'solid experts' to be addressed in the call.  W3C CGs have rules about
resolutions.

It's essential these rules be trusted.

Regards,

Timothy Holborn.

[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz_os8GdvH2nUGR3TERGMzJnNVU/view
[2]
http://jeffsayre.com/2010/09/13/web-3-0-powering-startups-to-become-smartups/


On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 17:56, Mitzi László <mitzil@inrupt.com> wrote:

> Hi W3C Solid Community Group,
>
> You’ll find the dial in details and agenda for tomorrows call on [1]. Let
> me know if you would like to add something to the agenda or add it directly
> to the wiki.
>
> Mitzi
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/solid/wiki/Meetings#20190606_1600CEST
>
>