create 2026-06-03.md

meetings/2026-06-03.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly
+
+* Date: 2026-06-03T14:00:00Z 
+* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
+* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
+
+## Chair
+
+* Christoph Braun - [uvdsl](https://github.com/uvdsl)
+
+## Present
+
+* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
+* [Jesse Wright](https://www.jeswr.org/)
+* [Rui Zhao](https://me.ryey.icu)
+* [Precious Oritsedere](https://ruky-oritsedere.solidcommunity.net#me)
+* Alain Bourgeois
+* [Ted Thibodeau Jr](https://www.linkedin.com/in/macted/) (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com) // GitHub:[@TallTed](https://github.com/TallTed) // Mastodon:[@TallTed](https://mastodon.social/@TallTed)
+* Marc Haddle- Datasolids
+* Erich Bremer
+
+## Regrets
+
+*
+
+---
+
+## Scribe
+* CB
+
+
+### 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
+*
+
+
+## Announcements
+
+### TPAC 2026 Meetings
+https://github.com/w3c/tpac2026-meetings/
+
+> If you have not done so, please discuss within your group and follow the
+below instructions to submit your request to meet during TPAC 2026,
+before 17 June. 
+
+- eP: if there is someone in person, we can do a hybrid meeting.
+- JW: if not me, we could sent Roberto?
+- eP: So it is possible? Maybe at the interaction with the Social CG/WG or/and with LWS WG.
+- CB: before proposing let's make sure we have something specific that should be discussed
+- JW: one area could be identity. (proposed) DID WG, VC WG doing stuff on CID, Social Web WG, ... for community building to try to get to shared identity system
+- CB: my question would be, what other than discussing. how you could build things, each group has it's own view. what's the plan for the workshop, how do we arrive at something?
+- JW: Ideally, I would like to see either converging on one of the mechansims from these groups or focus on a more WebID-based system?
+- eP: This week there is a Social Web CG/WG meeting (Friday, 14:00 UTC), so might be a good opportunity to check their interest - if somebody who is not me wants to join.
+- JW: I wonder whether this is better an email to get a response with a good/right time to discuss it. I'll draft an email.
+
+ACTION: Jesse to send email to relevant W3C groups
+
+## Pull Requests
+
+### Solid-OIDC
+
+#### Add Issuer Trust to Security Considerations
+https://github.com/solid/solid-oidc/pull/254
+
+- see JW's comments under that PR, jointly written in the call 
+
+## Topics
+
+### Access Control Languages
+
+* Issue: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/787
+
+- eP: I think I stated it a couple of times, whether it is feasable to implement or not. It seems tricky. I think we need invovlement from implementers of ACP servers. Probably someone from Inrupt needs to chime in.
+- CB: I see the abstract concern. It is absolutely possible to have implementation that uses different access control mechanisms jointly. Operational considerations are totally valid. It is not ground to say it is not feasable. Request can have filter to check how it is authorized both under WAC and ACP. System can make decision.
+- eP: Enforcing them once set seems fine, but setting and managing them seems complicated. We can spec whatever we want, but we should have implementations proving this.
+- JW: I want to echo eP here, that we need to have interest of implementors
+- CB: My point is not that I want to write it in spec now. I don't read the issue as writing it in the spec now. What I read and my past experience, this is a proposal that people can give feedback on. I'm not in favor of writing it in the spec and dumping it in WG and implementers. Mostly to signal how it could be done. I wouldn't want to pull the brakes here.
+- eP: In the current ecosystem, we have limited implementations. We have a small pool of implementers to check with. 
+- CB: My reading of the proposal was less that it should be written into spec today or tomorrow but rather as a proposal for people to consider, provide feedback, and if interested play around with and implement. And if sufficient adoption is present in the community, then this discussion and implementers' feedback could be the basis for a PR to the spec.
+
+
+## Actions 
+
+## Decisions
+
+## Links
+
+
+
+
+