Re: Towards Solid Lite

so 28. 10. 2023 v 16:18 odesílatel Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
napsal:

> 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?
>

Thanks for the encouragement, Sarven.  Yes, I will give this a try, since
there seems to be an appetite.  It's something I've been thinking about for
a long time, so, I'll gather all the feedback, put something together, and
report back.


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