What a CG to do?

I initially wrote this as a response to a [discussion in the 2025-04-09 
Solid CG 
meeting](https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2025-04-09.md#peaceful-progress), 
but I thought since this is somewhat of an ongoing topic, I should share 
here.

Background on what a CG supposed to be / do is always handy:

* W3C [Comparison of Group 
Types](https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/compare/)
* [FAQ | Community and Business 
Groups](https://www.w3.org/community/about/faq/)
* [W3C Community and Business Groups - 
Introduction](https://www.w3.org/2011/Talks/community-201109/)

---

Personal understanding and experience:

In the most general and common sense, a CG is a space where people with 
different abilities and aspirations but with shared interested can meet 
to [incubate 
stuff](https://csarven.ca/presentations/socially-aware-web#incubation) 
together. There's no strict notion of formal or informal - see also the 
fine print on agreements, rights, and process. At the end of the day, 
there are just different kinds of stamps of approval from different 
stakeholders.

A lot of the interesting and important stuff happens in CGs and IGs, not 
WGs. You can't really have a WG or a successful one at that without 
[demonstrating that proposals have 
matured](https://www.w3.org/guide/standards-track/#has-the-proposed-spec-been-incubated-to-reasonable-maturity) 
to some degree. Strangely, some think they can just dump their 
proprietary solution out of thin air without properly going through an 
open incubation process. That does not follow the principles of [open 
standards development](https://open-stand.org/about-us/principles/). 
That's called pushing buttons for vendor lock-in or shooting for 
monopoly. Generally speaking, WG reports can show more reliable and 
interoperable solutions than CGs, but that's just part of their process 
and purpose. CGs are just one piece of the bigger picture, and it's 
important to understand their role without getting caught up on all or 
nothing mindset or trying boiling the ocean.

I hate to break it to some, but the LWS WG alone isn't going to fix the 
web. The LWS WG is not superior to the Solid CG. In fact, the Solid CG 
should be thinking more broadly than LWS, because the LWS WG is 
extremely limited in what it can accomplish.

If Solid is generally framed as being about "fixing the web" and society 
at large (tm), then it's obvious the problem space is super complex. It 
can't be tackled in a vacuum. It needs coordination with all sorts of 
groups addressing the challenges from both technical and social angles. 
The Solid CG contributes to that with what it can. It's not just about 
connecting technical specifications, whether internally or across groups 
and standards developing organisations, but also ensuring the work is 
well thought-out, [ethically 
grounded](https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/), and that 
contributors [consider the social 
ramifications](https://w3ctag.github.io/societal-impact-questionnaire/) 
of what they're doing.

Solid CG having work items that overlap (to some extent) with another 
group isn't a bad thing, as I see it. It just means there are multiple 
approaches to solving shared problems (use cases). That's totally normal 
and even healthy. I'd be more worried if there was only one proposed 
solution to a wide range of big problems. Even WGs have delivered 
multiple specs offering different solutions to the exact same use cases.

It's 100% okay for CGs to incubate ideas as far as they're able to. For 
the Solid CG, I'd suggest more focus on cultivating a healthy community, 
welcoming diverse voices, striving for equity, being inclusive, while 
working to eliminate antipatterns (see slides: "uninformed/casual 
comments, non-commitment, withholding knowledge, architecture astronomy, 
behaviour without Group consensus, commonswashing"), and respecting 
processes and guidelines. The technical stuff will sort itself out (tm).

I find there's not enough noise about that in the Solid CG, but a 
disproportionate amount of noise about what a WG thinks or will do with 
flavour x of feature y in specification z, and whether the CG should 
just sit on the sidelines and see how things go. Those that want to do 
that, can step aside so that those that want to continue can without 
friction. As if the kind and amount of things in the [CG's 
scope](https://www.w3.org/community/solid/charter/#scope) is not as wide 
as open as the sky - which is a luxury with plenty of opportunity to 
make all sorts of advancements. Even publishing a W3C WG specification 
is just one step. It ticks the "[adequate implementation 
experience](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#adequate-implementation)" 
box, and Members/Team/etc. approve it at some point for Rec. But many 
Recs just collect dust because they don't get adopted further or the 
ecosystem shifts and what once seemed promising becomes irrelevant. 
That's life. Sometimes specs just sit for ages until an external factor 
makes them critical infrastructure. History is full of examples and not 
just for specs.

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