Skip to content

2024-01-10.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
117 lines (91 loc) · 11.8 KB

2024-01-10.md

File metadata and controls

117 lines (91 loc) · 11.8 KB

#Solid Project: Solid Team

Present

Announcements

Meeting Recordings and Transcripts

  • No audio or video recording, or automated transcripts without consent. Meetings are transcribed and made public. If consent is withheld by anyone, recording/retention must not occur.
  • Join queue to talk.

Participation and Code of Conduct

Scribes

  • Sarven Capadisli

Topics

Website redesign

  • VB: I volunteered to fix the HTML and remove Bootstrap. I will do this before the end of the month (January). Will PR the branch. Don't merge until done.
  • MdJ: Want to encourage everyone to create small PRs in 2023 branch. Working on list of events. If you search for a href for example, there are things that lead to nowhere. Please create a PR to get those links in.
  • KA: If we do want to contribute to changes, should we just make PRs to that branch? [yes]
  • SC: Since Giselle proposed the design as the direction we want to go, make sure that the view is something that is conforming to the design Giselle proposed. Michiel makes a good point about these links. The structure of information on the site, if this design incorporates IA we need to have documentation on that, like a sitemap. If it's just visual I think we can look at it that way. MAke sure design is as intended.
  • MdJ: Reponse to SC, you may be behind on facts. It is already passed to the coder. If you want to create a sitemap you can. Most needed contributions from the team members are missing links. if you want to do it, try to do it in the next weeks so we can merge.
  • SC: The context is that design incorporate IA. I am aware it was passed on. But the design is not at all what Giselle proposed. Coder is not just giving visuals.
  • VB: Re merging the PR, do not merge for things we haven't agreed on, e.g., the HTML.
  • KA: I largely agree with MjD. Sounds like you want a style guide for the person who was converting the HTML/CSS. We can create a style guide for the repo for anyone who wants to contribute in the future, but a large part of that style guide should be already captured in the CSS.
  • SC: The response to my question about it this is just design was that this includes IA. If it is, then that should have been in the proposal.
  • KA: InVision has features to extract this information.
  • JZ: Do I undersatnd that you already created HTML+CSS?
  • VB: There was a freelancer doing it. They did it in bootstrap which we didn't agree on and so I have to go in and change it.
  • JZ: When done, it'd be just HTML+CSS right? What other document would coder need?
  • SC: Giselle approved the design. If yo uwant to ensure that whoever is coding it, typically they're given some information / document that they follow beyond the visuals. Because this whole design was proposed as a way of capturing IA and UX, I'd expect normally a bit more info than what's in InVision.
  • KA: This is the first iteration converting the designs to HTML+CSS. It is extremely helpful to have someone do it and we can follow-up with fixes, e.g., VB going to removing JS etc. We don't consider what's there now as final.

Process and time to review PRs

  • VB: Let's aim to have PRs open for 24 hours minimum. There were three PRs open and merged yesterday within an hour. While this is fine for small changes, it does not allow people to review properly and maybe give input. The purpose of PR review is not to just rubberstamp.
  • VB: This is not good practise. Mentioned in chat but may need additional discussion and contributing guidelines.
  • VB: Sometimes quite a bit of work to revert changes. We're all volunteers, ack'ing that but we shouldn't rush either.
  • SC: In Solid CG, we have this guideline: https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#processing-pull-requests , proposer has a way of cateogirzing the complexity / kinds of changes. That helps the reviewer assess how to look at the PR. From that you can figure out how long it can be open. If it's a typo those things don't need a lot of time. If it's removing links, pages, restructuing.. I suggest we can come up with something like that.
  • VB: I'll look into adapting something like that for our group. For now, lets commit to at least 24h before merging.
  • KA: Agree. Was going to suggest not everyone is on the call or review these notes. When PRs are made, we include that.
  • JZ: Seems to me like two different issues: 1) how long they're open, and agree with you that there need sto be longer period, 2) who knows about it and sees it. Perhaps another way to signal "ack but I can't review now will get back to this".
  • VB: Good input. Will add a Contributing Guidelines.

Solid World report

URL: https://hackmd.io/kN52sfoJQauugdSmQFp8fA

  • VB: Compiled timeline of events and discussions around Solid World organization. We should decide how to move forward.
  • VB: I think this report should be moved to an issue, if no objections.
  • VB: Not many on the call. Need more input from the others. Don't want to leave it in this hackmd long.
  • VB: I ask that we reach a conclusion on this topic. Find an organiser that works with us. Have task force or subgroup and open it to the wider community. They don't have to be the same organisers, it can be dynamic. The proposal in the report is to make a wider call for the organisation.
  • JZ: Generally yes agree with you. I like the idea of it being community organised. What I don't like is losing support from Inrupt. Why should we have to take this on? I wonder if we can say we are the organisers but appreciate help from Inrupt (or others) on certain parts. Want to be able to say that we'd like Inrupt involved but have ST organise.
  • VB: Ack that we appreciate Inrupt's help but need a strategy on how to move forward with other partners, and the people in charge of the org.
  • JZ: Possibly split. THnk of the ST as the org, and the companies supporting the support tools. Which may be more in line with how we operate.
  • MdJ: I wonder why ST wants to be involved on SW. If ST is involved in organising events. For example the Solid Symposium. Having the same stance.
  • VB: We had this discussion before. Essentially it is not the same because Solid Symposium is organised by itself, and it doesn't say it is organised by Solid Project. There is additional background from past meetings/agreemnts. If this needs ot be organised by a separate event / org, that's fine, just needs to be clear regarding association to the Solid Project.
  • MdJ: Who wants it or not to be a ST event. Just like SS is not organised by us. I think the mistake was to say hey we want to do that, but we don't have time to do it. So, someone else has to do it but that they have to run it by us. If it is called under Solid Project / Team, need approval from the Team.
  • VB: Right.
  • MdJ: So they should stop tagging that (re who it is organised by).
  • VB: If we don't have control of that, we don't actually behave in the way we want. That's the whole difference. If an event claims to be organized by SP we need to guarantee things like transparency, CoC, etc.
  • JZ: Solid World was intended to be a showcase of the community, an open source community. We as a team is not dictate what everyone does but to support or otherwise help the open source community of Solid. If we just say let the companies do this however, then I disagree with that. This team has the responsibility to show what Solid is and if no events it'd be a shame. It'd be a community event in which Inrupt would support but that's not what happened. Inrupt made it an Inrupt event. If we say let someone else do it, it doesn't solve what we wanted.
  • MdJ: Why don't you raise this in the Solid Symposium. Why do you want to control SW but not SS?
  • JZ: I want this team to have a voice, which is why we did SW. Having companies do it is not going to address that. I agree with you that everyone should make one but we should also make one organised by us - we should have a showcase.
  • VB: Major difference between SW and SS. SW is claimed with Solid Project, not SS. The report I linked above captures all that from the past ST meetings / agreements. Needs to have checks and balances. I don't have a personal preferences. Just asking the distinction.
  • MdJ: XXX on who/what is organised by whom. We do apply the Solid CoC.
  • VB: you're welcome to propose it again but I don' twant ot re-open the debate.
  • JZ: You don't think this ST has any role on promoting Solid to the world.
  • MdJ: Website, Solid community serer, and any support. It should be minimal. Administering. Seeing it as admin team and not project team.
  • VB: That goes against what the Scope of the Team was which we agreed. A lot of effort went into that. The report captures it. That's the scope fo the team. You're welcome to re-propose. Just saying we went over that already.
  • JZ: Your welcome to have what the vision is for the ST - what you (MdJ) described - which is not same as mine.
  • MdJ: My point is about not stopping people from doing what they're doing. I konw we said SW has a special status. The main event and perhaps we should revert that and say that it is one of many events.
  • VB: I'm going to get a tattoo on my forehead. Until the agreements / Scope changes, it is our job to take care of this (SW) event. A lot of effort went into making this decision. ST decision.
  • JZ: Nothing I said or implied that ST should stop anyone doing anyhting. Talking about SW is what we created and should have control of. Doesn't say anyhting baout the other events. SS, great, go for it.. others, cool! SW is within the Scope of the ST, and wants to put on.
  • SC: Report captures a lot of stuff if we need to make decisions by date. I don't have a strong opinion about who oprganizes, whoever it's coming from it's that and it entails the voice that comes with it, who it speaks on behalf of. We have this guideline in Solid CG e.g. https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#communication
  • MdJ: Agree with SC. Sorry for the confusion. If I understand correctly, the current communication is confusing. We've also written down we'll organise but current situation is that. How to move forward. Some changes are necessary. The setup supposedly Hadrian organises and passes it to me isn't working. So, we make the documentation match reality.

Calendar invites

  • KA: They seem to have disappeared, can someone please reinstate them?
  • VB: Same.
  • KA: Got some notifications but they're gone. If we don't have someone centrally org, fine.
  • SC: I created an ical in solid community somewhere. If people want to important that we can take that approach.
  • KA: Up to date?
  • SC: No, I haven't kept it but if we're sticking to monthly it'd be low maintanance.

Success stories from the past month

  • JZ: Two of the projects who met each other in the Practitioners group have jointly applied for a transatlantic collaboration grant metnioning in the grant application Practitioners as part of their collaboration and networking infrastructure and as a place for them to share the results of their work.
  • JZ: I have been given a twenty minute slot during the final plenary of Solid Symposium to talk about Practitioners, I can also convey other news from the Team if people want to suggest items to me