W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-solid@w3.org > March 2019

Re: W3C Solid Community Call

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:58:53 +1000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3DTjEJx6Rstpe-upYD1o7DoUB=pJQvKGpBgcc+Sx0zvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Mitzi László <mitzil@inrupt.com>, public-solid <public-solid@w3.org>
Imho,

W3C solid - would help to cement the moral custodianship of solid interop
specs, with timbl, or so is the intent?

We don't want nodejs wars, if you understand the pun. (A reference to the
creation of w3c due to JavaScript standardisation issues, afaik)

I am supportive if this is indeed the case.

Noting, I think it is also important the objective is form more than
solid/inrupt for an array of reasons, inclusive to various requirements
considerations relating to the successor inrupt, imho.

Therein also, there are many other protocols to http today.  Where does the
web layer end?

Ie:  what is going to be more w3c and what is going to be more isoc / ietf
(etc)?

Timo

On Thu., 28 Mar. 2019, 3:43 am Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 18:23, Mitzi László <mitzil@inrupt.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi W3C Solid Community Group,
>>
>> You can find the final agenda [1] and dial in details [2] for the call
>> tomorrow at 1400 CET.
>>
>
> "proposal to move specs to github/w3c-solid"
>
> This proposal is problematic, in a general sense.
>
> When I spoke to Tim about starting this group, we did it because we didnt
> have a place (ie mailing list) for threaded conversations, of a technical
> nature.
>
> There is an expanse of the remit here, which im not opposed to, ie to help
> incubate all the solid specs.  I think it's actually a good idea, it is
> however, a different idea from what I put down when I started the group.
>
> But in practice, a mandate needs to come explicitly from Tim, even better
> if he were to join the group (so that he can read mailing list discussion),
> and cannot be via proxy.
>
> Tim needs to say what he wants to be put under the aegis of the CG, at
> least initially.
>
> Overall what we require from the specs is a period of stability.  If this
> group can help to ensure that, I think that's going to be a plus for solid.
>
>
>>
>> Mitzi
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/solid/wiki/Meetings
>>
>> [2]  https://zoom.us/j/121552099
>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2019 23:59:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:39 UTC