Re: Solid CG Charter

On 2023-07-04 23:25, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> I spotted an issue raised by Sarven about the Solid CG Charter ( 
> https://github.com/solid/process/pull/323 
> <https://github.com/solid/process/pull/323> ).
> 
> I propose that this, along with the WG formation, needs an extended 
> group review.
> 
> Some thoughts:
> 
>   * Key elements should be discussed via a mailing list.
>   * Anyone interested in volunteering their time to help the CG, should
>     say so
>   * For a small group, voting should be used as a last resort, not a
>     first step.
>   * We need to clarify the Solid WG's role before deciding the CG's next
>     steps.
> 
> Let's involve the whole group in deciding how we take the CG forward, 
> bearing in mind many will be on summer vacation, too


Hi Melvin, let me first say thank you for sharing the announcement about 
the PR on the mailing list. You certainly beat me to it :) I am pleased 
with the considerations you're sharing here.

I absolutely agree with you that the CG charter needs a review, which is 
why it is a public PR. Thanks for emphasising that point. As mentioned 
on the GitHub PR, Matrix chat, and on today's CG weekly call, 
contributions in the form of feedback and requests for clarification are 
welcomed and encouraged on the PR.

You may be pleased to know that on the CG weekly call today, the group 
touched on some of the key areas as you've also raised here. Check out 
the minutes that will be available tomorrow at 
https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-07-05.md 
, or see the PR of the minutes that's currently under review. The point 
of today's CG call topic was to build awareness, as opposed to making 
any particular decision. As you've rightfully mentioned, folks do need 
time to read, digest, provide feedback on the PR. We'll have the charter 
PR as a recurring topic until it is resolved/merged. That is, to give 
everyone a chance to freely discuss if they'd like, in addition to other 
feedback we gather from elsewhere and record them the PR comments.

Rest assure that we'll make sure to have a "last call" to gather 
remaining feedback before making the CG charter official. Using the W3C 
Process as guidance towards a review period here, it could be at least 
28 days. So, on 2023-07-25 let's make sure to nudge folks. I can 
certainly use your help to reach on the mailing list and elsewhere. On 
one of the CG weekly meetings after 2023-08-01, we can merge if all 
feedback is formally addressed. Unless every member in the CG supports 
the charter, there won't be unanimity. I doubt that we will have 
unanimity since that's generally very hard anywhere - mind you the Solid 
CG currently as "270 participants representing 89 organizations" :) but 
then again unanimity is not required. We need to reach reasonable 
consensus about the CG charter, i.e., to be useful enough for us above 
all things, and I'm confident we'll achieve that (based on initial 
observations of the approvals of the PR as well as general verbal 
approvals in the CG call earlier today).

As you know, the general goals of CGs and WGs are clear as per W3C's 
definitions. In a nutshell, CGs incubate and WGs take works further on 
the standards track (among other things of course). Along with that, 
what remains with the specific roles or goals of the Solid CG and 
proposed WG are already outlined in their respective charters. Indeed 
let's further clarify their relationship especially once the WG comes 
into existence.

As mentioned elsewhere, the CG charter proposal for the most part aims 
to codify what's in practise as well as for going forward in simple and 
clear terms. A good dose of inspiration from other W3C Groups and W3C 
Process is baked into it. That said, the charter is not written in 
stone, and undoubtedly there'll be fine-tuning as we go.

Again, I admire your initiative and the care you are giving to make sure 
that we involve the whole group by reaching out on the mailing list. You 
have my full support! Would you be so kind as to take lead on gathering 
significant feedback from the mailing list (and anywhere else for that 
matter) and ensure that it is taken into account in the PR thread? I 
would appreciate it and I'm sure others would as well. Needless to say, 
I look forward to your improvements on the PR given your background in 
Solid and W3C works and processes in general.

-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i