Re: chairing the solid CG -- any takers?

po 9. 10. 2023 v 8:38 odesílatel Michiel de Jong <michiel@pondersource.com>
napsal:

> Hi Melvin,
>
> Good questions. On the practical side, I think Sarven is looking for tools
> we can use for the election process. I think the charter says we will have
> 3 chairs (or less than that if there are not enough candidates).
>
> Once Sarven announces the process I also plan to volunteer as one of the
> candidates!
>

Thank you very much for volunteering.  Having known you for 10+ years
through your open source initiatives, I'd love to see open source
represented in the project.  I think that if solid is to have a long-term
future it has to attract the grass roots, so +1 from me.


>
> Whereas a lot of Solid-related activity can also happen without links to
> the W3C context (e.g. using independently organised meet-ups and forums,
> facilitated by random volunteers, by the Solid Team, or by specific tech
> vendors, consortia, etc) I do think it’s important we keep this CG going,
> as an incubation ground (spec drafting, implementations, experimentation,
> test suite development) for all Solid-related spec features before they are
> ready to move to WG level.
>
> There’s nothing wrong with activity also happening at other CGs, or
> outside W3C altogether, and it’s good if components of Solid (e.g. WebID)
> are modular enough to be an independent thing, but it’s nice if we as a
> community strive to keep one dedicated place where tech vendors can go to
> help incubate Solid-specific spec features, and I would love to get a
> chance to contribute to that.
>

Agree


>
> But let’s wait for Sarven to announce the process and then we’ll take it
> from there!
>

I think it's only needed if 4 people want to do it, but let's see.  Straw
polls tend to fair better, since elections have the weakness of vote
stuffing.

I have mixed feelings about the charter, and in fact objected to it,
because we should have done the WG first, and let the CG adjust.  It says
it will come into effect after ratification, but nowhere defines
ratification.

However there are some good items, such as the 2 year term limit.  It would
be nice to get some fresh chairs, perhaps even a woman.

>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Michiel de Jong
> Director
> Ponder Source Foundation
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 06:44, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There was a discussion lately around charing the solid CG
>>
>> I also believe some of the current proposals are, "ridiculously
>> bureaucratic", to quote from the discussion
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/solid/specification/commit/70ee5206421614149ad78cc1ba9cab42aaaa6ddf#diff-faf482a7253376d87c21cb88f28f9b74706251f790f6e3b237e23ed8561898caR102
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> * TBL: Can you explain why you have to have an election if there is only
>> one candidate?
>> * SC: Because it's part of the agreement we have on the charter.
>> * TBL: Ridiculously bureaucratic. When you're looking for people to ???
>> it's often hard to find people.
>>
>> Also
>>
>> * TBL: Is anybody on this call who thinks they might be interested?
>> * VB: [crickets]
>> * VB: Maybe some people are building suspense.
>>
>> Could we simply ask who is willing to chair the group at this point?
>>
>> If it's only one person and there are no objections, I dont think we need
>> an election.
>>
>> It's unclear whether Eric put himself forward, but if so, we would be
>> lucky to have someone of his expertise and knowledge, so let me second that
>> suggestion.
>>
>> If anyone wishes to chair the group, could the simply make themselves
>> known, if there are fewer than 5, we could avoid a lot of needless
>> bureaucracy.
>>
>