Add 2022-04-27 minutes

Author: csarven

meetings/2022-04-27.md

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+# W3C Solid Community Group: Solid Editors
+
+* Date: 2022-04-27T13:00:00Z
+* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-specification
+* Chat: https://gitter.im/solid/specification
+* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
+
+## Present
+* [Sarven Capadisli](https://csarven.ca/#i)
+* Kjetil Kjernsmo
+* Justin Bingham
+* Tim Berners-Lee
+
+
+---
+
+## 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
+* [Join the W3C Solid Community Group](https://www.w3.org/community/solid/join), [W3C Account Request](http://www.w3.org/accounts/request), [W3C Community Contributor License Agreement](https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/)
+* [Solid Code of Conduct](https://github.com/solid/process/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md), [Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/)
+* Operating principle for effective participation is to allow access across disabilities, across country borders, and across time. Feedback on tooling and meeting timing is welcome.
+* If this is your first time, welcome! please introduce yourself.
+
+
+### Scribes
+* Sarven
+
+
+### Introductions
+* name: text
+
+---
+
+## Topics
+
+### Spec Tests
+* SC: Where the repos might end up as per solid/team request to move is a bit of a concern. Some moved to a location perhaps they shouldn't have just yet...
+* SC: I suggest that all test related repos - at least the work items - for the move should be done through test-suite panel but it is unclear because not everything is looked after that group e.g., solid-oidc-tests.
+* SC: Implementer doesn't exactly why they should use solid/test-suite or solid/specification-tests etc..
+* KK: Need to be careful about coverage.
+* JB: Would be great to have multiple tests fully complete but don't think we can.. neither test suite gives a definitive answer. Unclear what the groups agree on. And need to give clear guidance for the spec.
+* KK: Might be useful to look at where the disagreements are. Might be our fault or a test suite's fault. We need more resources to work on the tests.
+* TBL: every time we have an issue in the tests or they disagree, that's useful. if there was no disagreement then i'd suspect that the test suite hasn't ??? .
+* TBL: when e.g., solid chat breaks then write tests. so my apps don't break. and test that the pod will actually work / provide the functionality. people want solid to work in different ways. some ux to be smooth .. some secure. we have to be careful for people sneaking in to tweak the code.. more secure but then users can't figure out what's going on. that's where the spec is important / solid hits the middle ground.
+* KK: That's a good example of where we have a protocol independent thing.
+
+
+### Milestone/Roadmap/Prioritisation meeting
+* SC: Are we on for 2022-04-28?
+
+ACTION: KK to propose doodle.
+
+
+### Solid-OIDC and Solid-OIDC Primer
+* SC: https://solidproject.org/TR/2022/oidc-20220328 is published as Version 0.1.0.
+* SC: https://solidproject.org/TR/2022/oidc-primer-20220328 is published as Version 0.1.0.
+* KK: I tried to engage but it got merged - don't blame you for that but.. but I think it is difficult to understand the text that it is really about authentication. That is something that shouldn't have been published before clear.
+* TBL: You mean the text is obscure.
+* KK: It gibes me the impression that authn and authz is mixed. Mentions authz more than authn (like 3 times).
+* KK: TBL, you can also look at it to see what impression it gives you.
+* TBL: We should push back on two things being mixed.. and those things being separate in Solid. That's all we need from Solid OIDC .. to produce the user's id and that's it.
+* SC: We covered this last time.. and it was fine for ~FPWD/0.1.0.. clear enough in context of Solid OIDC spec.. but can be better outside/globally.
+* TBL: Solid UI and SolidOS.. with mashlib in it.. every time solid OIDC becomes with changes in an non-interoperable way. They should change the version / force you the change the major number.
+* JB: Our problem may be around versioning. Without saying the logic of our version scheme - what is implied. When I use semver 0.x 
+* SC: Can I make a proposal on this? Relates to CONTRIBUTING.
+* JB: +1
+* KK: +1
+* TBL: +1 to Sarven adding to Contributing the essence of Justin’s attitude to version control — use semver, don’t use things 0.x.x.
+
+ACTION: SC to propose.
+
+* TBL: Can we do that for Solid OIDC?
+* SC: We did that already.
+* JB: For all specs.
+* KK: I'd like to express breaking change in RDF / change log. Some code in github action.
+* SC: Just want to do the simple bit for revision - like at the top of the document.
+* TBL: What would it be for WAC / 0.9?
+* TBL: Version number is independent of process and maturity. It can be a CR... etc.
+* SC: What should the next WAC be (the one with acl link relation stuff).
+* TBL: 1.1
+* KK: Version number is not detailing the changes.
+* SC: How about Notifications Protocol?
+* TBL: I suggest 1.0.
+* SC: But it is missing the bit on discovering storage description (see next topic.)
+* KK: So then we can't publish anything before 1.0?
+* SC: I suppose
+* KK: How about 1.0.0-ed.01 ?
+* SC: ... to be continued...
+* KK: PERMATHREAD.
+
+
+### Notifications Protocol and WebSocketSubscription2021
+* SC: Can we wrap up the reviews for https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/391 and https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/392 this week?
+* SC: Related https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/355 but probably won't get that resolved before publishing 0.1.0.
+* SC: Have review from KK. would be nice to have more.
+* JB: Will look into it.
+* KK: I have no idea how WebSocketSubscription2021 will be for clients to move from the old/unsecure to new one.