14:00:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
14:00:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/08/24-lws-irc
14:00:39 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:00:40 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), laurens
14:00:52 <acoburn> present+
14:00:53 <eBremer> present+
14:00:57 <laurens> meeting: Linked Web Storage - 2026-08-24
14:01:06 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
14:01:13 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
14:01:14 <gibsonf1> present+
14:01:39 <langsamu> present+
14:02:04 <termontwouter> termontwouter has joined #lws
14:02:13 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:02:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/24-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:02:17 <jeremycaine> jeremycaine has joined #lws
14:02:24 <pchampin> present+
14:02:41 <termontwouter> present+
14:02:44 <laurens> present+
14:02:48 <acoburn> scribe: elf-pavlik
14:03:01 <acoburn> present+ elf-pavlik
14:03:24 <acoburn> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/08/17-lws-minutes.html
14:03:36 <elf-pavlik> laurens: admin charter extension process is still onging
14:03:38 <acoburn> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/08/31-lws-minutes.html
14:03:47 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:03:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/24-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:03:54 <elf-pavlik> pchampin: we are getting it extended for few months to have time to write a re-charter
14:04:06 <acoburn> chair: laurens
14:04:15 <elf-pavlik> ... even if it expires there is not auto closing, but we better do it in due time
14:04:30 <elf-pavlik> ... we need to continue the work on new charter, and AC will need to vote on that new charter
14:04:33 <TallTed> present+
14:04:35 <TallTed> chair: laurens
14:04:50 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:04:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/24-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:05:04 <elf-pavlik> laurens: our current recurring meeting is set to expire on Sep 8th, once admin re-charter goes through you should see and updated invite, sometimes in next few days
14:05:05 <TallTed> i/previous meeting: /agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260824T100000/
14:05:15 <elf-pavlik> ... we plan to keep the existing slot unless there are objections
14:05:27 <laurens> q?
14:05:31 <elf-pavlik> ... Sep 7th meeting has been canceled due to holidays in US
14:05:52 <laurens> zakim, take up agendum 2
14:05:52 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Vote: Discontinue the SSI DID Key document -> PR#229 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/229 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:06:07 <jeremycaine> for UK teammater, Aug 31st is a public holiday
14:06:33 <elf-pavlik> laurens: this PR removes the references to that authn suite
14:06:54 <acoburn> q+ to talk about relationship with ssi-cid
14:07:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/24-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:07:05 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:07:05 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to talk about relationship with ssi-cid
14:07:25 <elf-pavlik> acoburn: one consideration is that there is an overlap with ssi-cid suite
14:07:42 <elf-pavlik> ... currently the cid suite doesn't say anything particular about did methods and did URIs
14:08:07 <elf-pavlik> ... I would like to see, is to adjust ssi-cid to clarify how did method would work using this suite
14:08:28 <elf-pavlik> ... we may change dereference to resolve in few places, minor adjustments may be needed
14:08:30 <laurens> q?
14:08:41 <pchampin> +1, some adjustment to lws-authn-ssi-cid will be needed
14:09:07 <laurens> PROPOSAL: Merge the PR discontinuing the SSI DID Key document at https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/229
14:09:07 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/229 -> PR 229 Dicontinue authn-ssi-did-key (by pchampin)
14:09:12 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:09:16 <pchampin> +1
14:09:18 <laurens> +1
14:09:18 <termontwouter> +1
14:09:19 <jeremycaine> 0 - apologies, did not review
14:09:19 <eBremer> +1
14:09:21 <acoburn> +1
14:09:25 <TallTed> +1
14:09:27 <gibsonf1> +1
14:09:50 <laurens> RESOLVED: Merge the PR discontinuing the SSI DID Key document at https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/229
14:09:53 <acoburn> q+ to add an action to adjust ssi-cid suite
14:10:03 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:10:03 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to add an action to adjust ssi-cid suite
14:10:24 <elf-pavlik> acoburn: i will add an action, i'm willing to do it myself, regarding discussed adjustments to ssi-cid
14:10:33 <laurens> ACTION: acoburn to adjust the SSI-CID suite to be more clearly compatible with DID methods
14:10:37 <gb> Created -> action #231 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/231
14:10:57 <laurens> zakim, take up agendum 3
14:10:57 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Discussion: Remove the specific ETag requirements and defer to RFC 9110 -> PR#228 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/228 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:11:40 <elf-pavlik> laurens: we had some discussions in the past we pivoted from not having anything to introduce ETags as a baseline
14:12:10 <elf-pavlik> acoburn: from last week conversation, i reworked it from removing ETag requirement to having ETag a MUST
14:12:33 <elf-pavlik> ... it is applied across various resource types, data resources, containers, aux resources
14:12:51 <elf-pavlik> ... elf-pavlik mentioned formatting changes, there were touched since the lines were there before
14:12:56 <elf-pavlik> q+ to say no need this time
14:13:03 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:13:05 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to say no need this time
14:13:34 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik: mostly for future PRS
14:13:48 <elf-pavlik> acoburn: I agree PRs should be targeted, it's mostly due to history of this PR
14:13:59 <elf-pavlik> s/PRS/PRs/
14:14:17 <laurens> zakim, take up agendum 4
14:14:17 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Discussion: Add subject_uri_schemes_supported to AS metadata -> PR#227 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/227 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:15:03 <elf-pavlik> laurens: we want to be able to communicate in authz server metadata which types / schemes of identifiers are supported
14:15:29 <elf-pavlik> acoburn: we discussed it last week and approved, subject to modification to terminology
14:15:36 <TallTed> s/UK teammater/UK teammates/
14:15:47 <elf-pavlik> ... we had uri_scheme but in our examles we had DID scheme and method
14:16:06 <elf-pavlik> ... prefix seamed not fitting, i had suggested resolver
14:16:17 <TallTed> s/examles/examples/
14:16:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/24-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:16:29 <elf-pavlik> ... in the discussion Christoph suggested subject_identifier_types
14:16:46 <elf-pavlik> acoburn: I like it better than resolver, i would be inclined to use types
14:16:49 <laurens> +1 to subject_identifier_types_supported
14:17:03 <elf-pavlik> ... please weigh in the PR unless you have opinion now
14:17:06 <elf-pavlik> +] types
14:17:07 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
14:17:13 <ericP> present+
14:17:15 <elf-pavlik> s/+]/+1
14:17:30 <elf-pavlik> laurens: I see some emoji reactions in the PR
14:17:49 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask if old vote is still valid?
14:17:56 <ericP> scribe+
14:18:01 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:18:01 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask if old vote is still valid?
14:18:12 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik: can you just merge it based on older vote?
14:18:18 <ericP> elf-pavlik: do we have to vote again or is rough-consensus in the PR enough for a merge?
14:18:30 <elf-pavlik> acoburn: since we change terminology, i migh suggest that we have pro forma vote next week
14:18:35 <ericP> scribe-
14:18:37 <elf-pavlik> laurens: i agree since we change some requirements
14:18:54 <laurens> zakim, take up agendum 5
14:18:54 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Discussion: Decide on resolution for StorageResource definition -> issue#220 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/220 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:19:34 <elf-pavlik> laurens: there is discussion on terminology
14:19:51 <elf-pavlik> ... is it relevant beyound access requests and access grants
14:20:02 <elf-pavlik> acoburn: as far as i know it is for acces requests and access grants
14:20:09 <elf-pavlik> q+ to mention LWS resource definition
14:20:25 <elf-pavlik> laurens: eBremer is there anything specific you would like to discuss today?
14:20:34 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:20:34 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention LWS resource definition
14:20:43 <elf-pavlik> eBremer: I think is clear and do the draft to discuss it
14:20:48 <ericP> scribe+
14:21:25 <ericP> elf-pavlik: i think we want to align the LWS resource alternative names but we can do it after the PR
14:21:38 <elf-pavlik> laurens: I would be inclined to support existing LWS Resource and don't introduce new terminology
14:21:42 <ericP> laurens: +1 to doing that after merging
14:21:45 <ericP> scribe-
14:21:49 <laurens> zakim, take up agendum 6
14:21:49 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Discussion: Extracting the move of resources between containers -> issue#148 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/148 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:22:28 <elf-pavlik> laurens: in the proposal for containers, there was a notion for multiple containment, which we didn't keep
14:22:46 <elf-pavlik> ... it had possibility of moving resources between containers in atomic matter
14:23:02 <elf-pavlik> ... my main question would be to extract that aspect
14:23:18 <elf-pavlik> q+ to mention that it's not possible now with even two requests
14:23:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/24-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:23:36 <elf-pavlik> laurens: are there any considerations or issues that need to be fixed
14:23:38 <pchampin> +1 to pursue the direction just described
14:23:38 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:23:38 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention that it's not possible now with even two requests
14:23:44 <ericP> scribe+
14:24:04 <ericP> elf-pavlik: i don't think we can re-parent this using the same identifier
14:24:21 <elf-pavlik> laurens: we don't specify how identifiers can be controlled by the cilent
14:24:21 <ericP> laurens: true, because we don't specify how to for identifiers
14:24:29 <ericP> ... we removed the Slug: header
14:24:29 <elf-pavlik> ... we need to introduce new operation for that
14:24:31 <gibsonf1> +1 to operations to move resources between containers
14:24:32 <termontwouter> +1 for the proposed approach
14:24:35 <elf-pavlik> q+ to mention authz
14:24:36 <ericP> scribe-
14:24:43 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:24:43 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention authz
14:24:44 <ericP> scribe+
14:25:31 <elf-pavlik> laurens: we should add consideration on authorization
14:25:32 <ericP> elf-pavlik: while we are staying away from authn as much as possible, but we could point out that it's like a DELETE and a POST
14:25:48 <elf-pavlik> laurens: I think it should be optional and not a MUST
14:26:04 <acoburn> q+ to ask about moving entire container hierarchies
14:26:08 <ericP> scribe-
14:26:09 <elf-pavlik> ... there should be some authorization check, possibly equivalent to DELETE and CREATE
14:26:11 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:26:11 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask about moving entire container hierarchies
14:26:31 <elf-pavlik> acoburn: what I'm reading in, was about moving data resource
14:26:57 <elf-pavlik> ... what I'm wondering about, would this proposal allow to move an entire hierarchy of containers
14:27:20 <gibsonf1> +1 on moving entire hierarchies permissions allowing
14:27:22 <elf-pavlik> ... if you were able to move a parent container would you move the whole subtree
14:27:30 <elf-pavlik> laurens: i would take it into consideration
14:27:39 <elf-pavlik> laurens: it may be up to implementers
14:27:48 <elf-pavlik> q+ to request storage capability for the feature
14:27:50 <pchampin> q+
14:27:57 <elf-pavlik> laurens: method not allowed could be returned
14:28:03 <elf-pavlik> ... it could be indicated
14:28:22 <elf-pavlik> ... otherwise we are going to go into a rabbit hole if we specify it
14:28:31 <acoburn> This will be something for which implementation feedback will be very important
14:28:39 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:28:39 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to request storage capability for the feature
14:28:48 <ericP> scribe+
14:28:56 <ericP> elf-pavlik: it should be discoverable
14:29:16 <ericP> ... low-hanging fruit to change the URI
14:29:32 <ericP> ... so we should add this to the StorageDescription
14:29:42 <termontwouter> +1 for clear capability discovery
14:29:58 <laurens> q?
14:30:01 <laurens> ack pchampin
14:30:24 <elf-pavlik> laurens: this capability is part of proposal i'm going to write
14:30:30 <elf-pavlik> ... we need to indicate what user can update
14:30:32 <ericP> scribe-
14:30:39 <elf-pavlik> ... possibly under certain condition
14:30:49 <elf-pavlik> pchampin: +1 on making it optional and discoverable
14:30:53 <eBremer> q+
14:30:59 <elf-pavlik> ... moving containers is tricky since it can cerate cycles
14:31:10 <elf-pavlik> ... we should have informative text warning implementers
14:31:31 <elf-pavlik> ... also talking about authorization, it should be the same on delete and create
14:31:55 <elf-pavlik> ... many authorization policies and rules are based on where it is, moving it can have impact on applied policies
14:32:09 <elf-pavlik> ... some non normative text should could help to point it out
14:32:22 <elf-pavlik> ... maybe even recommending it to warn the users about impact on access
14:32:24 <laurens> ack eBremer
14:32:41 <laurens> q?
14:32:46 <elf-pavlik> eBremer: I agree with everything, keep it optional, we should specify how exactly it should work when supported
14:33:02 <elf-pavlik> laurens: I'll try writing a PR and put it on next week agenda
14:33:18 <laurens> zakim, take up agendum 7
14:33:18 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- Discussion: Test suite -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:34:01 <elf-pavlik> langsamu: i will explain what i've been workin on, and even show something
14:34:20 <elf-pavlik> ... the test suite part and software for data driven test suite
14:34:37 <elf-pavlik> ... it will take some data in the test manifest format that ericP starte working on
14:34:48 <elf-pavlik> ... data and assertions on responses to those requests
14:35:07 <elf-pavlik> ... once it has been loaded and executed, we get EARL report
14:35:17 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask about sequence of requests
14:35:29 <elf-pavlik> ... report will be based on how responses meet the criteria
14:35:41 <elf-pavlik> laurens: is that work is in a public repo or not yet?
14:35:52 <elf-pavlik> langsamu: not yet but i'm getting there
14:36:04 <elf-pavlik> laurens: can other people chime in or contribute?
14:36:16 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:36:16 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask about sequence of requests
14:36:17 <ericP> scribe+
14:36:17 <elf-pavlik> langsamu: i don't ask for anything right now but will publish it
14:36:40 <ericP> elf-pavlik: i made some comments on the closed PR: sometimes we need to test a sequence of tests
14:36:51 <ericP> ... what's your plan for sequences?
14:37:26 <ericP> langsamu: these tests are generated from the examples so there's a lot more work. right now 1 req, 1 resp
14:37:29 <ericP> q+
14:38:17 <ericP> elf-pavlik: ericP's tests were single req/resp but the SoLID test suites are sequences
14:38:39 <ericP> langsamu: we can stack the antecedents in prereqs for a test
14:38:55 <ericP> elf-pavlik: so we have some duplication
14:39:03 <jeremycaine> present+
14:39:26 <ericP> langsamu: the software will need to meet the prereqs (the same way it runs a test)
14:39:48 <ericP> elf-pavlik: most servers will only offer a public LWS interface
14:40:18 <ericP> langsamu: agreed, we don't want unit-test style that invades the server
14:40:38 <ericP> ... if this is too much duplication, i may propose changes
14:40:41 <ericP> scribe-
14:40:42 <laurens> ack ericP
14:40:59 <elf-pavlik> ericP: I find myself frequently facing it
14:41:12 <elf-pavlik> ... having orthogonal tests
14:41:27 <elf-pavlik> ... if somethign in the sequence fails the whole seq is marked as broken
14:41:42 <elf-pavlik> ... and you also don't want to duplicate things in the surface of the test suite
14:41:59 <elf-pavlik> ... the best i've come up with, is to have lanugage for the post and gets and verifies
14:42:12 <elf-pavlik> ... then embedd it into prereqisites
14:42:26 <elf-pavlik> ... other expresivity that is required, you need to capture URLs and media types
14:42:32 <elf-pavlik> ... i have a sketch proposal for that
14:42:45 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask about idea of test suite task force
14:42:51 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:42:51 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask about idea of test suite task force
14:43:02 <ericP> scribe+
14:43:24 <ericP> elf-pavlik: i think jessie suggested a task force for testing
14:43:51 <ericP> langsamu: eBremer and i had a meeting already.
14:43:55 <elf-pavlik> langsamu: Jesse have setup on meeting and we made some progress
14:44:03 <ericP> laurens: +1 to a task force
14:44:04 <elf-pavlik> laurens: i support and idea of the task force
14:44:19 <ericP> scribe-
14:44:24 <elf-pavlik> laurens: if ericP or elf-pavlik are able to lead the effort on the task force?
14:44:34 <elf-pavlik> ... should we have more frequent deep drives
14:44:56 <elf-pavlik> jeswr: I will add recurring meeting and make available to the group
14:45:02 <ericP> q+
14:45:08 <laurens> ack ericP
14:45:08 <elf-pavlik> laurens: once we get implementers involved they may want to join as well
14:45:20 <laurens> ACTION: jeswr to plan recurring test suite task force meetings
14:45:22 <gb> Created -> action #232 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/232
14:45:29 <elf-pavlik> ericP: I'm not at all married to the current approach, we can make changes to it, feel free to propose ideas
14:45:37 <laurens> q?
14:45:54 <elf-pavlik> langsamu: thank you, it's good to know, i created some issues on that repo already
14:46:06 <elf-pavlik> ... i will probably stop doing issues and PRs and start making chanes
14:46:12 <elf-pavlik> ... it is intuitive and standard
14:46:23 <elf-pavlik> ericP: do you have gh permissions to go nuts?
14:46:32 <elf-pavlik> langsamu: i do have
14:46:44 <laurens> q?
14:47:39 <elf-pavlik> langsamu: you can see my CLI
14:47:55 <elf-pavlik> ... i'm running a test
14:48:13 <elf-pavlik> ... this is .NET cross platofrm, can be in a container
14:48:32 <elf-pavlik> ... a skeleton is running, each test is a no-op no assertions yet
14:48:46 <elf-pavlik> ... you may want to run suite as test
14:49:12 <elf-pavlik> langsamu: another command puts out Turtle with EARL assertion graph
14:49:34 <elf-pavlik> ... we have a test case for each entry in ericP's manifest
14:49:50 <elf-pavlik> ... I will add more data how it links to the specs
14:50:02 <elf-pavlik> ... I will also need to link test cases to one another
14:50:10 <elf-pavlik> ... leaf nodes represent specific assertions
14:50:15 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
14:50:16 <elf-pavlik> ... for example a 201 response
14:50:31 <elf-pavlik> ... each one would be a seprate test
14:50:32 <ericP> q+
14:50:34 <laurens> q?
14:50:37 <laurens> ack ericP
14:50:39 <elf-pavlik> q+ to make it easy to run by implementers
14:51:02 <elf-pavlik> ericP: EARL is the standard way people in SPARQL and RDF are reporting their results
14:51:10 <elf-pavlik> ... we can catalogue which features are supported by who
14:51:18 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:51:18 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to make it easy to run by implementers
14:51:18 <pchampin> q+
14:51:22 <elf-pavlik> ... anyone who runs suite learns earl
14:51:34 <elf-pavlik> langsamu: i've chose it exactly for that reason
14:51:40 <elf-pavlik> ... i've done it for SHACL
14:51:54 <elf-pavlik> ... there is an test suite, impl report and submission process
14:52:09 <pchampin> q-
14:52:10 <ericP> scribe+
14:52:12 <elf-pavlik> langsamu: implemeters should be able to produce a standard EARL report
14:52:46 <ericP> elf-pavlik: i have code to run the local tests as CI tests
14:53:02 <laurens> q?
14:53:04 <ericP> ... so it's available for both
14:53:09 <ericP> scribe-
14:53:11 <elf-pavlik> https://dagger.io/
14:53:20 <laurens> zakim, take up agendum 8
14:53:20 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- Discussion: Implementation feedback -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:53:40 <elf-pavlik> laurens: we may keep some discussion for the next week
14:53:49 <elf-pavlik> ... mostly checking who is working on implementations
14:54:04 <elf-pavlik> ... anyone is actively implementing, will it be open source, more of a hobby, PoC?
14:54:14 <elf-pavlik> ... are we intending to go beyond simple implementations
14:54:29 <elf-pavlik> ... not a formal pledge, mostly getting a feel
14:54:53 <jeremycaine> q+
14:54:56 <langsamu> I'm working on a server implementation as part the test suite work. Will be OS. No progress to report.
14:54:58 <laurens> ack jeremycaine
14:55:10 <elf-pavlik> jeremycaine: I haven't started on LWS
14:55:29 <elf-pavlik> ... I'm doing AI assisted Solid server in Rust
14:55:44 <elf-pavlik> ... I'm hoping some things can be carried over to LWS implementation
14:56:02 <gibsonf1> Will be starting soon on initial LWS commercial/proprietary implementation (TwinPod - Commonlisp)
14:56:05 <elf-pavlik> ... probably will get to doing LWS in October, will decide then if I will open source it
14:56:24 <elf-pavlik> q+ to mention access grants
14:56:41 <elf-pavlik> eBremer: I have LWS implemetation, is open source and critical to my work
14:56:46 <acoburn> Inrupt will be starting soon on an LWS implementation (commercial/closed-source)
14:56:50 <elf-pavlik> jeswr: I have a third implementation
14:57:08 <elf-pavlik> jeswr: elf-pavlik had a PR where I listed mine
14:57:43 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:57:45 <jeswr> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/171
14:57:47 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/171 -> PR 171 LWS Implementation tracking (by elf-pavlik)
14:57:54 <elf-pavlik> laurens: we may want to start tacking it in implementations reports style repo
14:58:00 <jeswr> +1 to implementation report
14:58:09 <ericP> scribe+
14:58:12 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:58:12 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention access grants
14:58:33 <ericP> elf-pavlik: i'm trying to align SoLID SAI with our access requests and grants in LWS
14:58:50 <ericP> ... it's still SoLID-based but should be re-usable in LWS
14:58:51 <laurens> q?
14:58:55 <ericP> scribe-
14:59:16 <jeremycaine> quit
14:59:28 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:59:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/24-lws-minutes.html acoburn
15:00:07 <acoburn> present+ jeswr
15:00:41 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/24-lws-minutes.html acoburn