We've moved on from proposing the "Solid" WG (PUMPKIN WG)

Quoted from here:

"at least the Solid CG (based on discussions on record) shares your view
that the WG will be called whatever it needs to be. We've moved on from
proposing the "Solid" WG, hence this PR. Furthermore, given that the Solid
Protocol is just one input document, I wouldn't rule out the possibility
that the protocol specification produced by the WG may call it something
entirely different. That's the intention behind "PUMPKIN Protocol v1.0"."


Would it be possible to provide some more context to this, and a pointer to
the decision making center.

I thought Solid would be a good WG since it has 2 implementations and a
test suite already.

Expanding the scope superficially seems risky as I think Solid was already
taking on too much.

I appreciate there is some politics at play, but some context would be
helpful.  Main goal IMHO would be to get Solid to REC as soon as possible.

Or if it's not going to make it as a REC, perhaps publish it as a Note with
stable version 1.0.

Received on Monday, 25 March 2024 02:37:57 UTC