Re: Towards Solid Lite

On 2023-10-28 15:34, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> I was wondering if it might be an idea to have a lite version of Solid
> 
> This might have several advantages
> 
> 1. Currently we have a spec which has a high learning curve for 
> new developers.  It is better suited to a phd student than to the grass 
> roots.  A simple spec might have a positive impact on new developers and 
> maintain full upgrade capability to solid 1.0, when it is ready

Propose a "simple spec". Put your name on it. Propose it as a new work item.

Alternatively, or in addition, consider writing the Solid Protocol Primer.

> 2. There is a large amount of bureaucracy involved with the project.  So 
> much so that the new proposed chair process would hold 6 weeks of 
> elections even if there was only one candidate for chair.  The large 
> bureaucracy might well suit full time employees that are paid to work on 
> solid, but that comes at the cost of the grass roots that work on 
> multiple projects or that wish to contribute on evenings or at weekends

What are your barriers to making PRs to improve the specs? You're 
invited to pick an issue at random or what interests you and move it 
forward.

You're still invited to join CG meetings and contribute.

Meeting time or tooling unsuitable? What works for you?

You're still invited to join chats and contribute.

Tooling inadequate? What works for you?

How can we help you to contribute (better)?

What kind of a contributions would you like to make?

> 3. The main open source servers right now are a barrier to 
> participation.  They are hard to run or debug.  Some are abusive, 
> insulting and harassing towards contributors in an unacceptable way, as 
> we all saw recently.

Please speak for yourself. That language doesn't help with anything 
other than throwing unnecessary negative energy. It is not helping you 
to make the point you think it is - it is going in the opposite 
direction. If anything, it is insulting. Stop it. This is not a debate.

>  Others lack transparency or momentum.  A lite spec 
> could see easier servers to be developed and deployed.

Propose that "lite spec", go to server projects, engage with 
implementers, walk them through.

> 4. The current spec is so complex that it contains bugs in every 
> implementation so that solid no longer benefits from its main value 
> proposition, and that is interoperability.  It is hard to interoperate, 
> to use, and to debug.  A lite spec would be much easier to have a 
> consistent maintenance burden, and good user experience.

The Solid Protocol? Sure, no doubt considering what it is supposed to be.

Show me a simpler spec all things considered / comparable with the use 
cases and requirements.

Software contains bugs? That's the first I'm hearing of such thing.

There is the whole Solid QA initiative and test suite work to ensure 
that implementation conformance of the specifications can be verified.

Will you help with the Solid QA work?

> 5. Solid 1.0 wont be ready until 2026 at the earliest.  That means that 
> we still dont know what the final version will look like, or even if 
> there will be more idea creep.  A lite spec could be used while waiting 
> to find out what 1.0 or even 2.0 would look like without a long wait.

Go for it. Lead the way.

> 6. Now that we have a test suite, it could also be used against a lite 
> spec, by taking an agreed-upon minimal subset of the tests.  
> Implementers could see they are compliant and also see what other 
> features would be useful.

Propose that "lite spec" and let's see its coverage.

> I have considered that this would be needed for a long time.  It might 
> be a good time to examine the idea as we have a WG charter and can have 
> a better idea of what the full version of solid looks like, and 
> therefore, can guess what a useful subset can be.
> 
> What do folks think about a simple lite subset of solid, with a 
> streamlined process, set of test, developer on ramp, lighter process and 
> useful eco system with full upgrade to 1.0 when it is there, via adding 
> additional tests, from the test suite.

You are motivated. Will you take ideas in your email and lead this work?

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

Received on Saturday, 28 October 2023 14:17:40 UTC