Re: webid serializations consensus 2023

Dereference to turtle or json-ld
- consumer must support both

Dereference to turtle and json-ld
- publisher must support conneg

Both of these cases may need punted to the solid wg, where it becomes a
child of an infrastructure which already requires one of these things.

The only alternatives are
a) a separate web-id-json-ld which specifies as the existing specification
but replaces turtle with json-ld
b) a generic X is a webid if it dereferences to an rdf response...
optionally response which asserts X has a class Y (which entails X a wedid)

Therapy used to be a great deal of communication and process over a
specification which basically just says if you dereference x to a turtle
document it's a webid

On Wed, 5 Jul 2023, 21:58 Melvin Carvalho, <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> st 5. 7. 2023 v 22:10 odesílatel Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
> napsal:
>
>> I’m not trying to be pedantic but previous experiences have taught me
>> that decision making at a group level is better done with clearly defined
>> and agreed upon rules and processes.
>>
>> Quoting from the charter [1]:
>>
>> > this group will seek to make decisions when there is consensus
>>
>> Quoting from the W3C Process Document [2] :
>>
>> > Consensus:
>> >   A substantial number of individuals in the set support the decision
>> and there is no sustained objection from anybody in the set. Individuals in
>> the set may abstain. Abstention is either an explicit expression of no
>> opinion or silence by an individual in the set.
>>
>> Quoting from the guide to the role of Chair [4]:
>>
>> > Appoints document editors.
>>
>>
>> Leaving my offer to the side for a second, Henry has called for a vote on
>> the handover to the Solid WG to the group here [3] and so far I count 3
>> explicit votes: Henry, Melvin and I. I do not read that as a substantial
>> number of individuals, moreso if we consider the total number of members
>> (70) but also if we only consider those who’ve been active recently (20).
>> In fact, more people encouraged me to edit the spec than those who stated
>> their vote for or against the Solid WG handover.
>>
>> Handing over to the Solid WG is a significant decision and it needs to be
>> taken in a way that respects the time that we have collectively spent
>> participating in these discussions. If we are to choose by means of “lazy
>> consensus”, in which lack of objection after sufficient notice is taken as
>> assent as per the Process Document, at the very least least the vote should
>> be called again making that very clear. Likewise, it might be a good idea
>> to define a minimum threshold of active support before moving forward:
>>
>> > To avoid decisions where there is widespread apathy, (i.e., little
>> support and many abstentions), groups should set minimum thresholds of
>> active support before a decision can be recorded.
>>
>>
>> I’m hesitant to call votes myself as, based on my readings and talks with
>> members of other groups, this is something that the chair should do. I’ve
>> pinged Henry a few times but I don’t think he’s ever responded. I can’t
>> find any documentation on what to do if the chair is unresponsive. My gut
>> feeling, based on the assumption that the Chair is ultimately there to
>> facilitate the activity of the group and therefore can not act against the
>> group’s documented will, would be to:
>>
>> 1. Gather consensus on a minimum threshold of active support, the manner
>> in which a vote should be called and casted and the duration of the voting
>> window
>> 2. If and once the voting process is agreed upon, vote on the handover to
>> the Solid WG, with or without approval by the chair
>> 3. If that vote passes, vote on my editing the "consensus report
>> document” (I have just made up that name)
>> 4. If that vote passes, I’m good to go
>>
>> If, at any point in this process, Henry were to facilitate things as the
>> Chair of this group, that would make me very happy.
>>
>
> Regrettably, our group lacks an active chair, and to my knowledge, a chair
> was never formally chosen by the CG. Our current incumbent self-selected
> over a decade ago and has been sporadically present. Given this, relying on
> the chair's assistance, may result in unnecessary delays.
>
>
>>
>> [1]: https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter
>> [2]: https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#Consensus
>> [3]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jun/0001.html
>> [4]: https://www.w3.org/Guide/chair/role.html
>>
>>
>>
>>