Community Group Program CG

Semantic view of CG activities?

<Ian> Ian: Stay tuned, Dom and I have been talking about providing more consumable information about CGs.

<Ian> Dom: One tool that one can use is the CG monitor.

<Ian> Deborah: ChatGPT answer was not good

User Journey Graph (UJG) Community Group

<Ian> (Seva Dolgopolov presents)

Seva: I submitted a User Journey Graph CG proposal a month ago, which I'm now chairing

Seva: the goal is the make it interoperable machine readable user journey, to enable their validation
… design intent is usually represented as diagrams or narrative and can't be linked to implementation
… engineers/developers end up using their own language which breaks away from the origin design intent
… we want to bridge between reality and design intents
… right now we're looking at a 5 layers structure that can be adopted incrementally
… the core layer is a JSON-LD envelope, which allows to represent the graph that defines the journey with sub-journeys
… the third layer is about how the design is actually used, how it is experienced
… the 4th layer is about the runtime, how it is executed
… the 5th describes conformance, mapping between reality (runtime) and intent (graph)

<elf-pavlik> https://ujg.specs.openuji.org/ed/architecture#conceptual-stack

Seva: the spec is built out of 8 modules with various degree of development
… they're built with Speculator, a tool close to ReSpec in terms of configuration file and feature set

<elf-pavlik> https://speculator.openuji.dev/

Seva: with a few additional nice features, incl back statements which allow to mark normative requirements and generate JSON-LD out of them
… to allow to create conformance tooling

<elf-pavlik> https://speculator.openuji.dev/features/spec-statements/

Seva: we're interested if you have use cases we can experiment with, or if it has useful intersections with your own work

Elf: besides the user journey graph CG, I've been playing with Speculator - where would be a good place to discuss it? the Spec Editors CG?

<Ian> Dom: I think the speced-cg would be a good place to discuss speculator

<Ian> ...either as such or for inspiration in existing tools

Solid CG Election approach

<Ian> (Sarven Capadisli presents)

Sarven: here to share the experiment the Solid CG has conducted with the W3C Team to carry out a CG chairs election mediated by the W3C Team

<csarven> w3c/cg-program#24 (comment)

Solid CG chair election - Notes for the presentation

Sarven: the CG has 300+ participants, with a handful active and the majority silent
… I chaired the CG between 2019 and 2023; it came to a point where I felt I needed to pass the baton, which we wanted to approach via a democratic mechanism, inspired by the election process for the TAG & the AB
… also inspired by the Crendentials CG charter and further developed it for the Solid CG
… One part of it is about the chair selection
… one part we used from the W3C Process it to limit to 1 vote per affiliation
… with also only one chair for a given affiliation
… There is a CG charter template, but neither Credentials nor Solid used that at that time
… The key part is about election procedure
… a first challenge is that W3C doesn't make WBS available to CGs
… which made it a bit more difficult to authenticate the voters
… we could have used a random third party with the burden of verifying identity of the voters
… we approached the Team to see if we could W3C WBS tool which authenticates against the list of group participants
… this was an experiment to see how workable and scalable a process that needed support from the W3C Team, figuring out which tasks could be kept in the CG hands and which one needed mediation from the Team
… the election used the same tools as regular W3C elections - WBS with OpenSTV, which the Team derives into anonymous ballots that allows to calculate winners
… this was done in chair elections in 2023 and 2025 - with a number of open seats
… part of the process was to identify a single rep for a given affiliation - we used a default of the lowest account id but left the choice to the said people of a given affiliation to change that default
… we've identifed a number of possible improvements; part of the challenges is that even understanding STV and its mechanics require some level of education of the voters, and there needs to be people to help coordinate the logistics
… it may seem daunting, but overall have proved fairly straightforward
… we have a tool that uses data from the W3C API to get the list of participants
… we didn't spend time on picking a voting method, we adopted STV as the one used for TAG & AB

<cwilso> I note that if there's only one seat, it's ranked choice, not STV

Deborah: how specific is this process to the Solid CG? couldn't it be applied to other CGs

sarven: not specific to the Solid CG

Program updates

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/2026/Talks/cg-update-20260218.pdf

Slideset: https://www.w3.org/2026/Talks/cg-update-20260218.pdf

[Slide 2]

CG Spec mockups

cwilso: the progress bar tracks from inception from transfer but labeled as maturity which will be interpreted as "mature standard"
… wouldn't want to have people to think as "3/4" done

Ian: that's a risk with any progress bar - is it the "maturity" sentence that is problematic?

cwilso: can think of different solutions: change the terminology (avoid maturity or clarify maturity of what)
… or extend the progress bar to cover the standardization period
… and clearly stop mid-way for the transfer
… Re implementation traction - having something about interop of multiple implementations is the most important if it can be captured

Elf: +1 to emphasize test suites; if it could expose coverage that would be even be better
… in terms of implementation, it may vary across different class of products (e.G. stable impl in servers, but clients still in flux)

<csarven> Solid QA: https://solidproject.org/ED/qa -- but not actually tied to "Solid"

Ian: maybe a link to an interop report would be a good complement to the test suite

<Zakim> csarven, you wanted to discuss maturity and big picture diagram (like in Process)

csarven: re maturity, I like the progress bar and +1 to cwilso in fixing the impression it gives
… it may be useful to bring more of a "where are you in the process" .. like there is the recommendation line and then there is the wide standardisation line. Thinking along the lines of the diagram in the Process may also be helpful.

Ian: we got the request to have a document that clarifies the relative status of incubation vs stanardization - we don't have it yet but this would be a place to give a more holistic picture
… would be reluctant to bring the holistiic picture in the progress bar; might be interesting to see if the progress bar could expand to WG specs over time

Seva: is any design system planned around the layout?

ian: this was done by the firm that designed the new W3C web site; they may have re-used some of their work in there, while keeping the core of the document as is

elf-pavlik: another useful indicator is the # of open issues and pull requests, maybe activity charts

[Slide 3]

[Slide 4]