- From: Christoph Braun <braun3@fzi.de>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:46:39 +0200
- To: public-solid <public-solid@w3.org>
Dear all, there is disagreement on what the intent and content regarding access control language(s) in the Solid26 Implementation Guide should be. I have manually reviewed all CG meeting minutes [Minutes] starting 2026-01-07 and linked documents relevant to that discussion. Please find all the relevant references at the end of this email. My full comment including a documentation of my evaluation can be found here: https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/783#issuecomment-4325498262 ## TL;DR: I thus arrive at the conclusion that - the technical arguments made to also recommend ACP do not invalidate the agreement and decision that had been reached within the CG. - the intention of "Solid26" from the beginning was indeed to recommend one access control language (as it was communicated that way and the initial drafts only listing ACP). - the agreed to process resulted in WAC being the choice of access control language to recommend This CG followed the usual process of finding consensus or agreement and to reach a decision on a proposal. If individual CG members are not satisfied with the outcome of the decision or the data collection by means of which the outcome was determined, I would urge them to raise an issue to the group and make their concerns explicit in writing such that it can later be referenced. At the same time, I urge CG members to not obstruct implementation of the CG's decision, even though they might personally disagree. ## Status Quo - "Solid26" was communicated by @jeswr (JW) and Oli Bage (OB) to select one access control language and to recommend that choice. [2026-01-21],[2026-01-28],[2026-03-18],[2026-03-20],[2026-03-25],[2026-04-01] - Prior to data collection, the initial Google Docs drafts for Solid26 listed ACP as the already chosen access control language to recommend. [Solid26 Overview (draft)], [Solid26 (draft)] - Data collection shows high adoption of WAC and low adoption of ACP in the community. [Results (archived)] - After the data collection had finished, it was proposed by @jeswr to recommend WAC and in addition mention ACP. [2026-04-08] - An Objection was raised by @csarven against this proposal based on the earlier communicated goal and agreement on that goal in the group. [2026-04-15] - TimBL argued to recommend ACP en par with WAC. [2026-04-15] - The editors of Solid26 moved forward with recommending WAC while mentioning ACP, though not to include ACP, despite the objection. [Commit] - The argument to recommend ACP en par with WAC depended on use cases was iterated. [2026-04-22] - It was argued that "Solid26" were not intended to lock in baselines. [2026-04-22] Based on the above, I observe that - agreement was reached within the group to recommend one access control language based on the data gathered - the choice of access control language to recommend had fallen on WAC under consensus of the group - there is no agreement within the group not to recommend WAC - there is no agreement within the group to recommend ACP and WAC en par - there is no agreement within the group to recommend ACP I further note that - the current draft for "Solid26" already mentions ACP as an expressive access control language and acknowledges that implementers might find ACP to satisfy their use cases. - this is already borders what was originally communicated within and agreed to by the group. I thus arrive at the conclusion that - the technical arguments made to also recommend ACP do not invalidate the agreement and decision that had been reached within the CG. - the intention of "Solid26" from the beginning was indeed to recommend one access control language (as it was communicated that way and the initial drafts only listing ACP). - the agreed to process resulted in WAC being the choice of access control language to recommend This CG followed the usual process of finding consensus or agreement and to reach a decision on a proposal. If individual CG members are not satisfied with the outcome of the decision or the data collection by means of which the outcome was determined, I would urge them to raise an issue to the group and make their concerns explicit in writing such that it can later be referenced. At the same time, I urge CG members to not obstruct implementation of the CG's decision, even though they might personally disagree. Cheers Christoph --- References [Minutes] https://github.com/solid/specification/tree/main/meetings [2026-01-21] https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2026-01-21.md [2026-01-28] https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2026-01-28.md [2026-03-18] https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2026-03-18.md [2026-03-20] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2026Mar/0019.html [2026-03-25] https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2026-03-25.md [2026-04-01] https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2026-04-01.md [2026-04-08] https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2026-04-08.md [2026-04-15] https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2026-04-15.md [2026-04-22] https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2026-04-22.md [Solid26 Overview (draft)] https://web.archive.org/web/20260424082149/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HxaShh5MVRBcimo9uXrtpWPCW6Xo5S9aOLdFAQX2oJY/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.68mt47qe53m7 [Solid26 (draft)] https://web.archive.org/web/20260424080942/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1da2J-NsU3K-4kWEFOvhzIdrvy_KftewXdlxfu401kY0/edit?tab=t.0 [Results (archived)] https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/implementations/wac-acp.2026-04-01.csv [Commit] https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/776/commits/12a71a33fc4674d7b296e2b6733856a9c1067e4c
Received on Monday, 27 April 2026 08:46:46 UTC