Re: Chairing, Superspec, subspecs and WebID 1.0

so 11. 11. 2023 v 21:51 odesílatel Aaron Coburn <aaronc@inrupt.com> napsal:

> This sounds really good.
>
> In addition to what Jacopo wrote, one thing that might help us reach
> consensus on a WebID specification is to start with a collection of clearly
> articulated use cases. If we agree on the use cases, it can be easier to
> find agreement on the specification that follows.
>
> While this would add an extra step at the beginning of this process, this
> can help clarify the scope and direction for WebID.
>
> I suspect that there is already a lot of informal agreement on the use
> cases, but by formalizing this more clearly now, we may be able to avoid a
> certain category of disagreements and/or scope creep later on.
>

W3C use cases are notoriously hit and miss.

For example looking at the Solid WG Charter, it says:

"Solid servers and applications across a wide range of use cases."

Which points to this

https://github.com/solid/user-stories

Wall of text

Then you have to find your way to the issues:

https://github.com/solid/user-stories/issues

With a top issue: "Someone to manage these stories?"

And the actual user stories are an uncategorized mess.  And that's an
actual working group.

There might be some compromise happy medium where we can pool expertise and
come up with a practical set of use cases that are already in use, and
useful, or that are close to being in use, and have broad appeal.  For
example:

1. The microblogging use case is prevalent across the open social web, and
reaching a degree of maturity.

2. The SEO use case is widely deployed across the web.

3. WebID was always designed to be the basis of a social graph, something
to rival facebook, but as an open standard, dating back to the FOAF concept.

4. We should want to create an open social network with group based
privacy, similar to facebook.  In fact that was the whole motivation for
the creation of Solid, before the academia pivot.  Something with friends,
friend request and connections.

5. A key use case is single-sign on using PKI.  That's how it all started.

6. Allowing agents to work together with humans on the web.

7. User data control, download, and archival

8. Encrypted chat applications, and messengers

9. Payments from one user to another without requiring a third party.

Perhaps we can make a pragmatic list of a dozen or so of these.

But what purpose will it serve?


>
> Aaron
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023, 4:46 PM Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Rather suddenly, I find myself being the chair of this group. I did apply
>> in [1] but I actually got promoted (or elected?) almost immediately and
>> without notifications of any kind. In fact, this happened so quickly that
>> I’d fully understand if any of you were to disagree with it. Please do give
>> voice to your objections if any, either here on the list of privately via
>> my personal email address.
>>
>> In my application I stated that my goal would be "turning Nathan’s
>> superspec/subspec proposal into WebID 1.0”, and that is what I intend to do
>> - or at least have a serious go at it. Nathan’s proposal, first introduced
>> in [2], has already gathered a significant amount of consensus and can
>> elegantly address many, if not all, of the issues we’ve been debating over
>> the years, most of which have been touched upon in [3]. My chairmanship is
>> tied to this goal and I plan to relinquish the chair at the end of this
>> process, regardless of whether we’ll have succeeded or failed.
>>
>> As for how to do this, these are my thoughts so far:
>>
>> 1. Ideally we’d need a new repo, starting from scratch. In practice,
>> splitting the conversation between two repositories would be unwise,
>> particularly given that the conversation is already split between this
>> mailing list and GitHub. I will likely open a new “root” PR for WebID 1.0
>> which will act as the “main branch” for all related changes.
>>
>> 2. Insofar as I have witnessed over the last few years, conversations
>> about WebID have a tendency to grow too abstract, too broad in scope and/or
>> somewhat polarized. This is perfectly understandable and normal; we see
>> things from different perspectives, we are passionate beings and we all
>> bring our own experiences to the table. However, these tendencies can, at
>> times, hinder our progress and in fact this group has a rather poor track
>> record when it comes to making progress.
>>
>> 3. To counteract these tendencies, I was thinking of iteratively issuing
>> RFCs explicitly limited to one comment per participant. The goal of these
>> "RFC threads" would not be to invite further discussion but to make it
>> possible for me to evaluate everyone’s position, summarize, update
>> documents, determine consensus and plan further RFC threads for the
>> remaining open points.
>>
>> 4. RFC threads would complement regular discussion threads, with each
>> issue being discussed first and made the subject of an RFC second. I think
>> RFC threads would be best managed as issues on GitHub.
>>
>> 5. I am a firm believer that perfect is the enemy of good, and that
>> sometimes settling for “good enough” can make the difference between
>> actually getting to the finish line and running out of fuel halfway through
>> the race. I don’t like half-baked things, either, but I don’t need
>> something to taste **exactly** how I think it should taste to enjoy its
>> merits . You’ll see this reflected in my editing efforts and I kindly ask
>> you to embrace this philosophy, even if just a tiny little bit.
>>
>> 6. To maintain balance, wellbeing and productivity in other areas of my
>> life I will timebox my involvement in all things WebID so as to keep a
>> limited but constant, daily presence. Please feel free to get in touch with
>> me privately via my personal email address for anything urgent.
>>
>> That’s all for now. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I’ll take
>> the weekend to mull things over and will begin working on WebID 1.0 on
>> Monday.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jacopo.
>>
>> [1]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Nov/0072.html
>> [2]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jul/0056.html
>> [3]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/3#issuecomment-1051064330
>>
>>
>>
>>
> This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
> addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged, confidential
> and/or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient of
> this e-mail (or the person responsible for delivering this document to the
> intended recipient), please do not disseminate, distribute, print or copy
> this e-mail, or any attachment thereto. If you have received this e-mail in
> error, please respond to the individual sending the message, and
> permanently delete the email.