Add agenda for 2024-09-27 (TPAC) #681
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
csarven
requested changes
Oct 2, 2024
Co-authored-by: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
TallTed
suggested changes
Oct 2, 2024
meetings/2024-09-27.md
Outdated
Comment on lines
139
to
141
| * HZ: One of hte big issues was in that call was about pod portability. It is very hard to move data from one location to another. If links are given, they may be broken. I'm not sure if that's something we should do in the WG or the CG. | ||
| * eP: There was a meeting about portability is Social Web meeting. And there would be different proposal. One for custom domain names, anothr for different resolution mechanisms, e.g., that isn't based on dns. A matrix that requires 'those' and 'that' requirement. Also to see priorities. For me it is important, for every proposal, we can evaluate those UCs. | ||
| * RG: What eP seems to ask is for architectural decision records in parallel with UCs and specifications. Perhaps something think in the WG. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * HZ: One of hte big issues was in that call was about pod portability. It is very hard to move data from one location to another. If links are given, they may be broken. I'm not sure if that's something we should do in the WG or the CG. | |
| * eP: There was a meeting about portability is Social Web meeting. And there would be different proposal. One for custom domain names, anothr for different resolution mechanisms, e.g., that isn't based on dns. A matrix that requires 'those' and 'that' requirement. Also to see priorities. For me it is important, for every proposal, we can evaluate those UCs. | |
| * RG: What eP seems to ask is for architectural decision records in parallel with UCs and specifications. Perhaps something think in the WG. | |
| * HZ: One of the big issues in that call was about pod portability. It is very hard to move data from one location to another. If links are given, they may be broken. I'm not sure whether that's something for the WG or the CG. | |
| * eP: There was a session about portability in Social Web meeting. And there would be different proposals. One for custom domain names, another for different resolution mechanisms, e.g., that aren't based on DNS. A matrix that requires 'those' and 'that' requirement. Also to see priorities. For me it is important that we can evaluate those UCs, for every proposal. | |
| * RG: What eP seems to ask is for architectural decision records in parallel with UCs and specifications. Perhaps something to think about in the WG. |
meetings/2024-09-27.md
Outdated
Comment on lines
144
to
145
| * eP: what I'd like to get out is a strategy for UCs. For me the UCs are real-world, as opposed to the solutions. Working with the Food Network, open source software. It'd be good to connect with existing communities with user bases. Easy to experiment with. Wha thtye do but also using Solid. We should be hte last peopel to come pu with UCs. Get UCs from facing the problems. We used the solid forum, which is open source also. social web also wants to to do threads. We can showcase how this UC can overlap with ??? If we get a UC, we extract requirements, and some may be out of scope. Since some of the rquirements may be outside of hte scope, ??? then some will be for the WG and others left for the CG. Real challenge is to get the UCs from out there. | ||
| * RG: To answer HZ's UC quickly using SC's answer. Goign got flip SC's answer. I think this is not a problem for just Solid or LWS. Maybe for Web platform, the reality is 1B people in a country like India will not be abl to own a domain name. Portability is not always going ot work, and I don't tihnk we are in a place to answer it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * eP: what I'd like to get out is a strategy for UCs. For me the UCs are real-world, as opposed to the solutions. Working with the Food Network, open source software. It'd be good to connect with existing communities with user bases. Easy to experiment with. Wha thtye do but also using Solid. We should be hte last peopel to come pu with UCs. Get UCs from facing the problems. We used the solid forum, which is open source also. social web also wants to to do threads. We can showcase how this UC can overlap with ??? If we get a UC, we extract requirements, and some may be out of scope. Since some of the rquirements may be outside of hte scope, ??? then some will be for the WG and others left for the CG. Real challenge is to get the UCs from out there. | |
| * RG: To answer HZ's UC quickly using SC's answer. Goign got flip SC's answer. I think this is not a problem for just Solid or LWS. Maybe for Web platform, the reality is 1B people in a country like India will not be abl to own a domain name. Portability is not always going ot work, and I don't tihnk we are in a place to answer it. | |
| * eP: What I'd like to get out is a strategy for UCs. For me, the UCs are real-world, as opposed to the solutions. Working with the Food Network, open source software. It'd be good to connect with existing communities with user bases. Easy to experiment with. What they do, but also using Solid. We should be the last people to come up with UCs. Get UCs from facing the problems. We used the Solid forum, which is also open source. Social web also wants to to do threads. We can showcase how this UC can overlap with ??? If we get a UC, we can extract requirements, and some may be out of scope. Since some of the requirements may be outside of the WG scope, ??? then some will be for the WG and others left for the CG. Real challenge is to get the UCs from out there. | |
| * RG: To answer HZ's UC quickly, using SC's answer. Going got flip SC's answer. I think this is not a problem for just Solid or LWS. Maybe for Web platform, the reality is 1Billion people in a country like India will not be able to own a domain name. Portability is not always going to work, and I don't think we are in a place to answer it. |
meetings/2024-09-27.md
Outdated
Comment on lines
165
to
166
| * SC: There's some initiative on Social Web circles to have Solid storages as Activity Streams Collections, following contacts, sending messages. There's old issues for NSS originally requesting this (2017) - https://github.com/nodeSolidServer/node-solid-server/issues/621 . We have Activity Pods and other work trying to merge both works. Folks behind those works seem to be - rightfully - confused as to where those gaps in specs should be addressed: Solid specs, implementations, Social Web? We should revisit some of these with Social Web folks. Solid CG could revisit too. | ||
| * PAC: Had a long and interesting topics on those with EP. There is the Social Web Maintenance WG charters.. The channels are open and agree with SC. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * SC: There's some initiative on Social Web circles to have Solid storages as Activity Streams Collections, following contacts, sending messages. There's old issues for NSS originally requesting this (2017) - https://github.com/nodeSolidServer/node-solid-server/issues/621 . We have Activity Pods and other work trying to merge both works. Folks behind those works seem to be - rightfully - confused as to where those gaps in specs should be addressed: Solid specs, implementations, Social Web? We should revisit some of these with Social Web folks. Solid CG could revisit too. | |
| * PAC: Had a long and interesting topics on those with EP. There is the Social Web Maintenance WG charters.. The channels are open and agree with SC. | |
| * SC: There are some initiatives in Social Web circles to have Solid storages as Activity Streams Collections, following contacts, sending messages. There are old issues for NSS originally requesting this (circa 2017) - <https://github.com/nodeSolidServer/node-solid-server/issues/621>. We have Activity Pods and other work trying to merge both works. Folks behind those works seem to be — rightfully — confused as to where those gaps in specs should be addressed: Solid specs, implementations, Social Web? We should revisit some of these with Social Web folks. Solid CG could revisit too. | |
| * PAC: Had a long and interesting topics on those with EP. There is the Social Web Maintenance WG charter. The channels are open and agree with SC. |
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Request to merge 24 hours after meeting.