- From: Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:19:27 +0100
- To: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
Hello all, Back with another “chair’s overview” - more about these in our CONTRIBUTING.md [1] file. The most important thing that has happened in the past week is that we had new voices join the conversation, pointing at the possibility that dropping any and all MUSTs on serialization formats might achieve a greater consensus than the MUST on Turtle and JSON-LD for publishers. The significance of this is twofold: it brings in potential for greater consensus, if perhaps not all the way up to unanimity, and it shows increased participation by less vocal members and other interested parties, which is absolutely critical for the group to succeed in the long term. To this end, I’m sure that many of you are in touch with others that have decided not to participate in the conversation due to the excessive volume of notifications and discussion threads that this group can generate. I kindly ask you to let them know that we’ve made following the group’s activity significantly less onerous: simply keeping an eye on PRs and reading the weekly chair’s overview is enough to get an idea of what’s going and to get a chance to participate in critical decision making. Lastly, before getting into the priorities for this week, I once again encourage all of you to take the time to elaborate on your comments and feedbacks beyond mere +/- 1s and (N)ACKs: - A binary indication of whether you agree with a change or not doesn’t help others in understanding the reasoning behind your stance, thus making it a lot harder for the group to converge as we don’t get to test and validate our arguments against those of others. In turn, this lowers our chances at achieving unanimity, the highest form of consensus. - A binary indication of whether you agree with a change or not does not indicate the degree to which you do so, i.e. whether you are expressing a mere preference or whether you are saying that you would not be able to live with(out) it. Knowing which and how many blockers there are is necessary for me to assess consensus. --- Ok, with that out of the way let’s look at the priorities for this week: - Reviewing PR #60 [2], which has already been reviewed by quite a few members and appears to be on a very good path. This PR brings in the definitions from issue #37 [5] and ensures correct use of terminology, addressing a long, long, long-standing issue. Merging this in would be momentous and a cause for celebration. - Making your case in issue #61 [3], which calls for all participants to present their technical arguments in favor of either the MUST on Turtle and JSON-LD for publishers or of dropping any and all requirements on serialization formats. - Making your case in issue #20 [4], where we discuss whether or not to shorten “WebID Profile Document” into “WebID Document” . See you next week! Jacopo. [1]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md [2]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/60 [3]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/61 [4]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/20 [5]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/37
Received on Monday, 12 February 2024 09:19:46 UTC