Create 2025-10-01.md (#747)

* Create 2025-10-01.md

* Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>

---------

Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>

Author: elf-pavlik

meetings/2025-10-01.md

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly
+
+* Date: 2025-10-01:00:00Z
+* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
+* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
+
+## Chair
+
+* Hadrian
+
+## Present
+
+* <a href="https://csarven.ca/#i" rel="schema:attendee">Sarven Capadisli</a>
+* Tom Byrd
+* Marc Haddle
+* [Erich Bremer](https://ebremer.com)
+* [Rui Zhao](https://me.ryey.icu)
+* Michal
+
+## Regrets
+
+* elf Pavlik - conflict with [Threat Modeling Community Group - Threat Modeling Live Session (Digital Credentials for Privacy)](https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/196f6a14-e2d2-4c39-bab9-3809208d8f08/)
+
+## Scribes
+
+* Tom Byrd
+
+---
+
+## 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/w3c-cg/solid/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 Conduct](https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/)
+* 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.
+
+---
+
+
+## Introductions
+
+
+## Review Action items
+
+ACTION: eP to check how test suite uses versions
+  * It seems very ad-hoc. This example shows commenting out and uncommenting version specific URLs: 
+    https://github.com/solid-contrib/specification-tests/blob/main/protocol/solid-protocol-test-manifest.ttl#L8-L16
+ACTION: eP to update 
+https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/pull/24 to use dates, not semver in the URL
+ * Done, hopefully already merged by the time of this meeting
+
+## Topics
+
+### Tracking implementer feedback
+https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/746
+
+* eP: Theo still has action to contact Solid World presenters
+* eP: I created #746. We can use different approach; we still don't have clear process. I wouldn't like Sarven to make arbitrary decisions and close such issues. If he acts as Solid Protocol editor, we could just separate implementation feedback from that CG draft and coordinate with LWS WG where the work continues. GH allows issues transfers and converting them into discussions, so there are options on the table. I'm also fine with separating my suggestions from original feedback. As long as we track the original feedback, it works for me.
+* Hadrian: Preference for relative IRIs
+
+* SC: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/746#issuecomment-3353943950
+  >[eP] Please stop mischaracterising my actions; they are not arbitrary. This is a strawman fallacy. I'm working to reduce duplication, not act as a gatekeeper. Creating issues without checking prior discussions or verifying alignment with Solid Protocol, and jumping straight to solutions without considering the use case, is not constructive. If this is purely implementation feedback or a solution proposal, take it to LWS.
+
+
+* SC: Re-iterated call for Use Case examples to support issues raised in Matrix Chats.
+
+
+### Copyright violation claim in Solid CG
+
+Proposed by SC.
+
+* SC: I've documented the concern with data as best as I can at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2025Sep/0005.html. The request for help from W3C Team is focused on the copyright claim itself. At the end of the email, I requested that the current CG chairs:
+
+  > take this matter seriously, 
+> discuss it in CG and take appropriate action, such as changing the 
+> titles of the issues back to their original at this point, and take 
+> additional measures on handling actions of non-CG participants by 
+> coordinating with organisation hosting the `solid` GitHub organisation.
+
+* SC: Prior discussion in the Solid CG ~6 months ago without action: https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2025-04-23.md#backuprestore-issue-history
+* SC: Issue Background.  Individual destroyed content on Solid Server.  Copyright violation claim also filed against same.
+* SC: Expect CG to respond to Copyright claim.  CGs' area of governance.
+* Hadrian: Clarification -- did individual remove comments?
+* Hadrian: Individual in question only deleted content added by said person.  Github sends notifications to contributors following topic.  Notifications are not publicly available.
+* SC: History captures changes.  For this issue, title change, content deletion.
+* Hadrian:  Action item.  Escalate issue to CG Chairs for resolution.  Future action, not ready today. 
+
+### Governance of Solid CG assets and communication
+
+Proposed by SC.
+
+* SC: from <https://github.com/solid-contrib/shapes/issues/5#issuecomment-3326730800>:
+  > Anything requiring Solid CG consensus must go through official communication channels. ODI neither governs nor controls W3C Solid CG's assets or work, nor does it determine what is "active" or "inactive" in any form.
+* SC: If there is a disagreement on that expectation, it should be put in writing. If a detailed clarification is needed, a proposal can be put forward to the CG.
+* SC: Revisit this issue in next meeting, with expectation that a different audience will have additional input.
+
+
+### add type for Class of Product
+
+Proposed by SC
+
+https://github.com/solid/vocab/pull/97
+
+* SC: I'd like to provide a summary of these discussions, and happy to answer any questions. If eP is not available to discuss, I will not be forcing or seeking a "resolution" in this meeting. I'd like to give them a chance to respond to the objections that I've raised in the PR, and most importantly acknowledge prior work, decisions, publications, and so forth, of the Solid CG. That said, if [PR 97](https://github.com/solid/vocab/pull/97) or [PR 98](https://github.com/solid/vocab/pull/98) or similar are agenda topics in the future, I request that I be present in the meeting to have my chance to respond to inquiries.
+* SC: In a nutshell, the proposed changes are problematic for the following reasons:
+  * Spec Terms already covers discovery of classes of products that are defined in specifications.
+  * This PR attempts to change the existing definition for `spec:requirementSubject` that directly contradicts prior agreement and established use of the term.
+* SC: Happy to provide more detail here but everyone can find all the facts and data on GitHub as well as on Matrix solid/specification chat.
+* SC: As stated, PR 97, or any variations of it, should be closed without changes.
+* SC: One last thing:
+* SC: eP framing this as mutual failure ignores the repeated disregard for established usage, prior work, and agreed processes that I've been highlighting. It goes without saying that "third-party" input is welcome, but review must remain grounded in the actual facts and prior work that raises the issues in PR 97, which eP refrained from acknowledging. At this point, waiting for eP's acknowledgement is not necessary, as it is causing disruption (see [W3C Code of Conduct](https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/#disruption)). Reframing the discussion or shifting focus away from these points does not change the evidence or its implications.
+* SC: I expect not to be in attendance next week (2025-10-08), request issue not be resolved in my absence. I can attend 2025-10-15.
+* Hadrian: Action Item. Clarify issue with Pavlik.
+
+
+### Fix present
+
+Proposed by https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/725
+
+* SC: PR was raised by RG with a lot of work done there.
+* SC: This was done 6 months ago and the PR is still open. Could the chairs maintain this work or?
+
+
+### Access Controls and Community Content Standards
+https://hackmd.io/@dtb23/SyWsIvljll
+
+* eP: Tom shared it last week, we could have initial discussion and look for ways to follow up.
+
+### Pull Requests
+
+### Tracking obstacles
+
+
+## Actions
+