Re: Unblocking WebID CG work items

> 1. The potential approval of the Solid WG Charter opens an opportunity for WebID to transition from draft to REC status. Our collective consensus suggests this is a desirable advancement.

Yes. In another thread [1] I have explicitly asked members to state their preference on how the group should assess consensus. “Lazy Consensus” appears to be the group’s preference. I think in a couple more days, assuming no objections, it’d be a good time to call for another vote on the Solid WG handover.

> 2. Jacopo has generously offered to assist with document editing to ensure a smoother transition and accurate representation of the group consensus. This assistance has been agreed upon for over a year now.

What I proposed last year was for me to try to produce a revision of the entire spec based on what I believe to be a shared core of consensus. I tried, it didn’t work. Please understand that, at least for me, these are different things - particularly given a lack of explicit agreement on how to assess consensus. That said, we’re getting there!

> 3. In August 2020, we unanimously agreed to include JSON-LD in the WebID spec [1]. 

I would caution against assuming unanimity without getting into the details of how to do this. That said, spending some time coalescing thoughts and opinions from this list and the discussion on GitHub should provide a good starting point. I would have to do this as part of the "consensus report” if I get to work on it. 

> Given that the Solid WG Charter could be up for voting soon, we need to enable Jacopo to begin his work with official confirmation, and generally unblock the group to facilitate timely interactions with any potential Solid CG.

> Proposal: To overcome these bottlenecks, I suggest we introduce a co-chair role to our CG. This role would support the consensus of the group and decrease the risk of further delay. Is anyone able to volunteer, temporarily for about 8 weeks, or on a permanent basis?

Speaking only about my confirmation, I’m happy with the group explicitly stating its preference towards a way to assess consensus that helps us work around bottlenecks (currently favoring “lazy consensus” but waiting a few more days for that thread to settle in) and I do not require a chair to proceed further. That said, I fully agree that nominating a co-chair would greatly simplify things.

Received on Sunday, 9 July 2023 20:56:46 UTC