Merge pull request #611 from solid/meetings/2024-01-09

Add 2024-01-09 agenda and minutes

meetings/2024-01-09.md

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+# W3C Solid Community Group: Special Topic Meeting
+
+* Date: 2024-01-09T14:00:00Z
+* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
+* Chat: https://matrix.to/#/#solid_specification:gitter.im
+* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
+* Status: Published
+
+## Present
+* [Virginia Balseiro](https://virginiabalseiro.com/#me)
+* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
+* [Sarven Capadisli](https://csarven.ca/#i)
+* Grace Elcock
+* Tim Berners-Lee (first 15 minutes)
+* Hadrian Zbarcea (Inrupt)(40 min in)
+---
+
+## Announcements
+
+### Meeting Guidelines
+* [W3C Solid Community Group Calendar](https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/solid/calendar).
+* [W3C Solid Community Group Meeting Guidelines](https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/README.md).
+* 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.
+* Topics can be proposed at the bottom of the agenda to be discussed as time allows. Make it known if a topic is urgent or cannot be postponed.
+
+### 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 Capadisli
+
+### Introductions
+* name: text
+
+
+---
+
+
+## Topics
+
+
+### Solid CG Election Retrospective
+URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/582
+
+* VB: [Solid CG Chair Election 2023: Elected Chairs](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2023Dec/0027.html) was announced in December.
+* VB: Open discussion — what we found, what we liked, what worked or didn't. What to take into account for next time. What to change. Will let everyone comment to share.
+* SC: The proceduce for the election was something we worked on with W3C team. Community process. We came up with something that works for W3C team and for us based on our needs with the charter. CG Charter is similar to W3C Process or WG Charter. Section on elections is a copy / very similar to TAG and AB elections. Questionnaire system. I asked W3C team if that was available for CG. Took a while to get an answer but they said yes so we created the questionnaire. Important part of why I insisted on working through W3C was authentication of the participants, which is easier with W3C than with 3rd party to make sure who can vote, etc. 
+* SC: W3C team is also keen on seeing how it'd work with CGs. We were the first CG to use it. As far as I can tell, they're quite happy that it worked out. Couple followups: generalize this, and make it available to anyone else who wants to use it, primarily CGs. 
+* SC: We had volunteers from CG for the election, from understanding how to draft messages to mailing lists, things we needed to find out from W3C, passing ballot data to us, anonymized, computer, announced, etc. What we have in this discussion is fairly detailed, but some details might be missing. Some details are in the mailing lists: announcements, what voters/chairs/volunteers/W3C/candidates need to do, etc. We can link them from this document, or merge some of that information into this document for future reuse. 
+* SC: Considering the amount of detail involved, it went fairly smoothly. We didn't have major blockers. Everyone who volunteered was able to use OpenSTV. We've documented as much as we can. Results, raw data, etc., is all in [W3C Solid CG repo](https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid).
+* VB: Comments from others? Improvements or changes for the future?
+* eP: I think it worked out pretty well. I see it as a positive result and experience. There are a few things that can be improved. Some require work on W3C Team side. One is a small one where SC followed up. When voting started, it had to be valid ballots. If invalid, that something they can improve as a requirement instead of a follow-up. There was no clear way to request feedback from affiliations. There was no official contact for each affiliation. Even if they're not W3C Members, perhaps internally they can send out information to designated voters. This is on GitHub, but it'd be good to have a clear communication channel so it would be helpful instead of asking the participants. The last part is, since I like to use Mermaid, I want to experience with Gantt chart. visual presentation for chair nomination and voters. Those are distinct things and having a visual representation accompany the written process may help. In the end, positive outcome and the process wasn't as complicated as it seemed in the beginning.
+* VB: I think that you can leave candidates unranked, but one issue is for those that are ranked, they have to be consecutive, for example. Having said that I didn't try to break it or submit an invalid ballot. We can try it out to see if there is such a message. That may have been confusing. You can of course rank one and unranked [????]
+* eP: I assume we inform W3C. We can test but safeguard the system.
+* VB: SC, is there a validation?
+* SC: AFAIK there isn't a warning to the voter. W3C said that when they notice an invalid vote, they'd contact the voter in private and try to get them to re-submit the vote. As eP said, how the questionnaire system works is on W3C side. That said, questionnaire has a repo, stuff like that can be somewhat out of scope for us, but we can suggest. 
+* SC: The other thing was about duplicates, if two candidates were ranked the same. 
+* SC: The announcement we made on mailing list about valid ballots, I wanted to specify the email address that would be contacting a voter with an invalid ballot, so that when voter gets an email, they need to be sure that it's not a scam, coming from a safe account, even though they may see it's coming from W3C account. When I suggested this to W3C they said they didn't want to do this to reduce the amount of commitments W3C team needed to make.
+* SC: Two things: whether this discussion should live on [Solid specification repo](https://github.com/solid/specification), we can add more notes. Maybe we should take this procedure, turn it into something like a template/general guideline, and put it in the [W3C Solid CG repo](https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid). Copy of this specific procedure under elections/2023, input/output, etc. The other thing is to make something reusable. Simplest would be to copy/paste this into an `.md` with links to announcements. 
+
+ACTION: Move discussion on 2023 election procedure into dedicated document in w3c-cg/solid. SC to PR.
+
+ACTION: Create issue to template the procedure. SC.
+
+* eP: We also have hackmd. Is that just scratchpad now? Anything else we should capture from there. https://hackmd.io/a6jv3bfnQBGace7Ajd_ePw
+* SC: Tie-breaking is something we can review.
+* VB: Have been reading about MeekSTV, not sure if that's most suitable.
+* SC: IIRC, it is used for TAG/AB elections.
+* eP: Perhaps add something about python2? the command-line to explictly use python2 for anyone that's not too familiar. 
+
+
+### Solid Ecosystem Monitor
+URL: https://virginiabalseiro.github.io/solid-ecosystem-monitor/
+
+* VB: Added table with election results data.
+* VB: This monitor will be reorganised. Have pages for meetings, elections, and other stuff.
+* VB: Table on election results is at the bottom. Counting the votes each candidate received per rank, and percentage of total votes for each rank. We can draw interesting conclusions. Could be useful. Also to evaluate the system re STV, tied to some of these observations.
+* SC: We said we would move this to solid contrib. 
+* VB: Yes. We can move it. 
+* eP: I objected to having it in the same repo, but if you think it's more convenient to have it there... I'd prefer a dedicated repo. 
+* VB: I think that's fine.
+* SC: No strong preference. 
+* SC: I don't know how to evaluate the results in a meaningful and fair way without understanding MeekSTV well. I'll trust the consensus in W3C as to why they use it and keep it aligned to rest of election stuff there. Easier to work with a process that they have than doing our own things, in case we have questions, etc. 
+* SC: That doesn't mean we cannot do additional things on top of things we observe. Charter has some constraints on only one person from each affiliation; we can add other constraints on other things. I don't know if there should be some thresholds. Comes down to the math. Looking at these results: one of the winners has 39% unranked. I don't know how to interpret that, but at face value, from 41 ballots, 39% said they did not want the candidate, but they got a seat. I don't know what to do with that information, but it does stand out. It had to do with the method. 
+* VB: Noticed the same thing and agree. I think it has to do with the way the votes are distributed and passed on to other candidates/ranks. And whether unranked held any weight. Not sure how that can be used for things like how this could be taken into account separately. In that row, there are 16 unranked for one, the others are 10, 5, 2, 1.
+* eP: I must admit I don't understand the details on how the votes are counted for ranks. If you say W3C is using this for TAG/AB elections, would be good to ask for clarifications. The pros and cons. If they decided on that and we adopted their decision and ask them about their reason and document.
+* VB: Agree.
+* SC: Sounds good.
+
+### Minutes for CG going forward
+
+* eP: Are we still PRing solid/specification?
+* SC: I don't have an answer but a question: should we still use HackMD for the minutes or change to using IRC for meetings and W3C bots, infra publishing, and whatnot? That can also help us generate and publish minutes, and would be published at w3.org. There are a couple advantages, would be preserved better. GitHub documents are not archived sometimes. Different take to your question.
+* eP: Having using IRC in the past, trying to unwrangle it, I'd prefer to not go there. Don't have to do string replacement. You can do collabrative scribing. Can have a PR if you want. Can also retract better. Personally, for scribing, I find hackmd more convenient. <https://archive.softwareheritage.org/save/>. We can also have clones of the repos. Prefer not to use Zakim/RRSAgent.
+* SC: I worry about linkability. Like I said, it's archivable, but when you need to link to the archived version of the minutes. I've noticed some types of documents were not archiving the whole thing. And sometimes part of larger discussion at W3C about using W3C space for W3C objects, as opposed to third party, including EDs, minutes, and so on. Some preference at W3C that things are kept under w3.org. 
+* VB: Perhaps what you said could be documented and people can see the why and have more discussion with people, in another meeting. See what you and also eP's point on hackmd being easy to minuting.
+* HZ: The positions are not divergent perhaps. One is about editing and the other is for reading later. Maybe we can use hackmd and migrate somehow somewhere else.
+* SC: Good point, maybe there's a way to push minutes in w3.org. We can ask PAC. But probably documented somewhere.
+* eP: Second VB on possible problems and solutions. Link permanence, backups, etc. We may miss some options. Not sure about SocialWeb's approach re wiki. Getting people to scribe on IRC may be hard for people.
+* VB: Prefer to keep it easier. Low bar for people to contribute by scribing. 
+* SC: Long time ago, minutes were copied into wiki but in recent years... social web has an index of the minutes and links to a standalone document generated by the IRC bots published under w3.org.
+
+ACTION: SC to create issue and document considerations on minuting in w3c-cg/solid.
+
+* VB: Another comment on migrating the repos. Prefer to have some duplication over splitting the minutes.
+* SC: May break links.
+* VB: We would not delete old ones. Just duplicate so it is more intuitive to find. 
+* eP: Could setup for w3id perhaps for more flexibility on where they are hosted. For the future, if we start on solid project ns, we may be more flexible on where keep and deploy. Related to the ACTION. Perhaps for now keep solid/specification, then after strategy.