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

Op 25/03/2024 om 03:37 schreef Melvin Carvalho:
> 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"."
>
> https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/69#discussion_r1534687761
>
> 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.
Just wanted to state that there are at least 5 working implementations 
which are spec-compliant:
- CSS (OSS)
- ESS/Inrupt
- Graphmetrix
- Nextcoud Solid (OSS)
- NSS (OSS)

> 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.

For the sake of progress, moving to a version 1.0 of Solid is important 
for the eco-system. It would be great for applications to be able to 
express that they are working on version 1.0 and that it is a stable 
version.

Kind regards,
Sjoerd

-- 
Sjoerd van Groning
Muze

T. 053 - 4308177 | 06 - 41265099
I. www.muze.nl | www.simplyedit.io | www.pdsinterop.org
E. sjoerd@muze.nl

Received on Monday, 25 March 2024 09:42:32 UTC