<michielbdejong> who is here?

<michielbdejong> Mitzi: you had a space there before the +

Jackson is Scribing!

<scribe> NEW TOPIC ============================

Conversation about the culture repository

There are a lot of issues open around the solid spec and we want to know how to come to an agreement

We have an attempt to have a consensus building mechanism

It will be presented to tim next week

So express yourself now

<KjetilK> https://github.com/solid/culture/pull/6

Model: Solid team (5 people appointed by Tim) panels (experts on a specific topic) and community (anyone can vote)

Mitzi: Who has power over decisions

<TallTed> scribenick: jackson

Mitzi: one of the concerns is about speed and efficiency and we don't want gridlock

<TallTed> jackson -- this guide may be helpful -- https://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions

Mitzi: Tes
... test

Dmitri: This sounds like a reasonable setup
... example from the w3c process, the working groups have 2 or 3 chairs that make the decisions except that anyone in the working group can raise a formal objection
... when that happens, everybody wants the objection to be resolved because if it isn't it gets kicked up to Tim

Mitzi: The way to raise a formal objection is another point that is not clear
... who can raise it, when, how many people

Dmitri: The w3c group is a much different process
... there are paid members

Mitzi: Given the vision of Solid is in the public interest we need a mechanism to be sure that the public voice is at the table
... We can't have the general public's voice missing

Ted: It's a challenge. Right now there's a lot of blurring of process between coding the implementation which is not a reference implementation but is the closest to one, to fixing the spec to building the solid community which is much broader
... it's all trying to be formalized in a way with very little formalization of the process of formalization

Mitizi: It's true there are a lot of layers of decision making

Kjetil: The general problems around the public. We should be thinking about the points of escalation. How do you handle the Solid team going rogue
... There is one conventional way to escalate things, and that is fork. And we should point to forking as a possibility
... Even though the idea of doing a fork is common knowledge to techies
... Also it could be escalated into a working group

<justinwb> fyi - can only stay for next 15m

Kjetil: even though it's a member driven process, you can still bring experts into the working group
... I think when the Solid team isn't serving the team right we should have these points of escallation

Dmitri: I want to add to Ted in pointing out there's a lot of fascets to the problem
... The relationship of the general community to the specs. It's absolutely true that users in general should have a say in the solid process
... But, users in general are not qualified to have strong opinions on the spec
... When it comes to the spec, it should be limited to people with skin in the game: developers, contributors
... It's really important to delineate the process. So different processes for the spec, server etc

Justin: I've been active about this on github
... I agree 1000% with what dmitri pointed out
... There are people who are qualified to guide the spec and people who are not and you want to ensure votes are qualified
... but you also need to make sure decisions that are made are always clearly aligned with Solid's overall mission
... I'm concerned about finding a way to channel the collective energies of everyone who wants to contribute to moving Solid forward in a consistent way
... I proposed a Solid team who's real rational is aligning the effort
... But at the core is panel teams

<TallTed> https://github.com/solid/culture/pull/6

Justin: The people working on those panel teams are equipped to do what they need to do
... Anyone in the community can give input to make a decision but the panel is focused on that
... There might be panels on Authentication... Interoperability
... Things that absolutely must be done to get Solid to satisfy the base requirements
... So all of this needs to be done in a concentrated way
... I'll be the first to say it's not perfect
... But we can all agree it's really important to have focused energy so we don't have stalemates left and right
... So we can move forward with solid
... I'm happy to make adjustments and changes, but we need to establish a way to make measured progress

Kjetil: The problem with defining skin in the game is difficult. At the end of the day someone needs to implement something.
... We have hackers and vendors who have no way to tell them to implement a specific feature
... I'm politically of the opinion that the government should be hiring hackers to work on this

<michielbdejong> justinwb: would you be ok with splitting up the spec-1.0 panel into 2 or 3 topic panels (possibly the same people, but with a less global mandate)

Kjetil: We also might have experts that might be in a panel but they might not be implementing the spec
... THe actual power is held by the people who do the actual implementation

<michielbdejong> justinwb: a bit more like an unconference :)

Kjetil: There is little to make them do things
... That said, I
... I'm supportive of Justin's way to do things
... But we need to extend it in ways to bring in the opinion of the public and people who don't have the power

<Zakim> KjetilK, you wanted to comment on skin in the game

Ted: We're working on 12 different things at the same time

<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to talk about scope and kind of specs -- solid server vs solid app vs solid user

Ted: None of the them are getting proper attention
... The things in NSS today are hacks

<justinwb> michielbdejong: if you're talking about different related specs (like webid-oidc) - that would be under a different panel (i.e. authentication), but if we're talking about different versions of the main solid spec, then i'd think it would be different projects within that main specification panel

Ted: And they are imortalized because NSS is being treated as a reference implementation

<justinwb> (of course this isn't set in stone yet so suggestions welcome) :)

Ted: The spec as it is today serves to describe an implementation
... somehow we need to find a starting line for everyone to start at, and right now everyone is starting in a new place and we're tripping over each other
... that's not a surprising result given the way this was built up

<michielbdejong> justinwb: i mean, i like the idea of starting a panel now about app-authorization, and to say that their conclusion is going to be what we'll accept as the new system for app-authorization. but that's a specific topic. i don't like the idea of one panel to rule them all

Ted: A lot of these code bits were created by random grad students

<justinwb> one panel for authorization wouldn't be one to rule them all - it would be one focused on authorization

<csarven> "I proposed a Solid team" !== "Individuals occupying these roles were appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Solid Leader." ---- 1) Which is it? 2) What was the qualification criteria?

Ted: In the original web, Tim put together a thing that he brought to CERN, the core skeleton was there, but the existing Solid spec doesn't have the core skeleton

Michiel: I like the idea that the panels are structured in an unconference way

<justinwb> i have to leave now - apologies - got a presentation scheduled - please add suggestions in github

<justinwb> or hit me on gitter!

Michiel: People start panels dynamically with groups of people who are interested
... And whatever that small group of people decides is what we're going to go with
... There is less legitimacy in saying there is a "spec 1.0" panel that will take make all the decisions

Justin: The purpose of panels is to be topic focused. So, we agree on what you're proposing
... I threw out some example panels, and what the panels are are up to debate

<justinwb> going to try and stick around here on IRC still

Mitizi: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I encourage you to get involved in the text
... The reason I want to create this together is we all have to agree with it
... Any final remarks?

<scribe> NEW TOPIC ====================================

<Mitzi> https://github.com/solid/information/issues/180

Issue about defining the vision mission and values of Solid

defining vision, mission, values of Solid -- https://github.com/solid/information/issues/180

Mitzi: There's a lot of text all over the place defining what Solid is, and I want to have a single text so we're all on the same page
... Recap of the conversation on that issue: Jordan went into detail about his understanding
... He mentioned Solid was about giving control of data back to the individual
... Some people have said that the user isn't necessarily and person

<Zakim> michielbdejong, you wanted to ask for more detail on the spec 1.0 panel

Mitzi: I'm going to be pretty relentless on having the person in the middle
... If the user is a person who works for a company you could say that's a legal offshoot of the person in the world

<michielbdejong> gtg, sorry o/

Mitzi: Users are at the core people

<csarven> "giving..back"? makes sense if this was Web v2 and where v1 didn't or operates to the contrary. The *current* Web does in fact enable individuals to control their data. Nothing changed on that matter. What you want to *express* is along the lines of Solid facilitating the notion of better controlling yourself or delegating to trusted parties.

Ted: Along similar lines. As a person I have control over my data. As an employee I don't have control over the companies data
... Figuring out where the line between those is, is going to be a legal argument for decades to come

<csarven> It is a social agreement ;)

<csarven> Not a legal battle.

Ted: What data a salesperson takes from one company to another is something that has already been fought over for centuries

<dmitriz> +1 to Ted's point, that this is a bit out of scope for us..

Ted: These are not questions we should try to answer
... The more we try to hammer out where this blur ends will hinder our productivity
... acknowledging this is fine, but trying to solve this can't be done
... getting that up and running will be far more productive in the end because it gives a space for people to get into
... The reason facebook took off because it was a compelling application
... What are we talking about in this call? We are supposed to be talking about the Solid spec, and we're not talking about that

Mitzi: But it's about the vision of Solid. In one line what are we doing?

Ted: This discussion does not lead to clearer specifications
... As I said before there are flags and questions.
... How do you handle multiple parties?
... These are implementation details not how does it do what it does

Mitzi: So what's the job, what's the vision

Ted: That's a question of use cases not spec

Mitzi: I think that apps are critical in getting real in people's lives. I agree with that
... I'm wondering how to communicate the Solid specification. If we say "Solid gives the user the ability to switch between software" Is this really different than the current situation
... If facebook is the "user" then they still could be Solid compliant.
... The law can be incredibly helpful, so if we don't tackle that and say the person is the user, and we can depend on the law. But that's all out of scope when saying people are in control of their data.

Ted: Great so it's out of scope! I don't think we need to be reinventing GDPR

Mitzi: Well not reinventing rather... the conversation is do we define the user as a person or not.

Ted: If we don't define the user as person it still has the potential to be different
... I may choose to consent to have a third party to have my data, but questions become immediate that this third party caches my data for scalability
... You would need to curl every pod around the world, it's easy when there's 100 but it's super hard if there's 1000000 unless you allow for aggregation at some point.
... These are technical questions that need to be answered and they have a social frame around them. There's a basic idea that solid is reimplementing a linux filesystem in a web space.
... There's a big discussion right now about trying to delete a resource. These challenges are already hairy on a technical space well before we get into the ethical issues
... Dealing with these interconnections will be an ongoing challenge, but the challenges need to be met with the tech.

Mitzi: There's been a conclusion to launch a neutral Solid site: solidproject.rog
... solidproject.org

<Vincent> Mitzi: I'd like to invite you to join the converation about what should go up on solidproject.org

<Vincent> (Where?)

<Mitzi> GitHub.com/solid/information

<Vincent> Yes I am

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/name: Mitzi Who/Mitzi: Who/
Present: KjetilK michielbdejong TallTed jackson Vincent Matthias_Evering justinwb
Found ScribeNick: jackson
Inferring Scribes: jackson
Found Date: 20 Jun 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)