Re: Reviewing solid formal objection (9) -- broadening the scope of the group

On 11/10/2023 17:27, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> Reviewing the formal objections to the solid charter I was trying to 
> understand this one better.
>
> In particular, I didnt fully parse what "all ideas proposing 
> solutions" means in the context beneath
>
> text:
>
> "broaden the scope of the group, do not restrict the solution space 
> (9, FO)
>
> PAC: it would be better if the group address the problem and bring to 
> the table all ideas proposing the solutions."
>
> Would be great if anyone can shed some light on this

To develop a bit what I was saying:

many reviewers criticized the fact that this charter is focusing on a 
preconceived  solution (namely, the Solid protocol), and suggested that 
the WG should be addressing a *problem*, keeping an open mind on all 
possible solutions to that problem (Solid being only one of them).

As I stated during the CG meeting, all hats off (this is my personal 
opinion, *not* an official W3C possition), I find this criticism a bit 
unfair: if we had come with a charter with no clear path forward, only 
the will to discuss and compare different solutions, we would probably 
have been rejected and told to create a CG for that... which actually 
this group has, 5 years ago!

That being said, it could still be argued that the CG itself  was 
started around a preconceived solution. Some reviewers wonder to what 
extend this has prevented other communities to join the discussion. I'm 
currently gathering evidence that these discussions have actually 
happened between the Solid community at large and other groups :

* joint meeting btw the Solid CG and the FedCM CG in 2021/ : 
https://github.com/solid/authentication-panel/blob/main/meetings/2021-02-22-webid.md

* joint meeting btw the Solid CG and  the Credentials CG in 2021: 
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-03-10-solidextra/

* joint meeting btw the Solid CG and  the WebAgents CG in 2023: 
https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-09-26.md

* Michiel reported some interactions between a bunch of Solid pioneed 
with the Hunosted CG back in 2015
* In March 2023, the European commission organized a workshop on "Solid 
and MyData operator interoperability"
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/semic-support-centre/event/second-workshop-personal-data-spaces


To conclude I believe that there would be some value in creating a 
broad-scope CG around personal data stores, where many different 
solutions could be discussed and compared, and where 
bridges/convergences between them could be incubated. But that should 
not prevent a WG to progress on a a particular solution that fits the 
need of a number of different stakeholders, and for which they need an 
interoperable standard.
Again, this is my personal opinion at this stage, *not* the official W3C 
position. But that's the case I intend to make internally in order to 
move forward with the charter.


>
> https://hackmd.io/GR3lSqD0RS6_r986wK9Hug