Add description for specification's intended audience

[jacoscaz]

This PR refactors #29 on top of the BikeShed transition brought in by #45 . Content-wise it should be identical to the former.

[jacoscaz]

@TallTed and @kidehen , could you please re-apply the changes you requested in https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/29#discussion_r1447926962 on top of this one?

[TallTed]

@TallTed and @kidehen, could you please re-apply the changes you requested in https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/29#discussion_r1447926962 on top of this one?

Applied.

[jacoscaz]

/chair hat on

This PR originated from #29 , which has been open for almost a month and already reviewed by a few of us. Furthermore, it does not introduce a significant change. Deadline set to 2024-02-05.

EDIT: fixed reference to PR as per @TallTed 's comment below.

[TallTed]

This PR originated from https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/28

Nope, #29

[jacoscaz]

Thanks @TallTed !

[melvincarvalho]

Given WebID is supposed to be a micro spec, I dont think it's a good idea to add more to it at this stage.

Now:

Specification authors who want to extend WebID via additional specifications, e.g., identity authentication protocols

This is also unclear. Shouldnt the primary way to extend WebID in 2024 be through extension profiles. I think we should do that first, before making the micro spec, less micro.

[jacoscaz]

/chair hat off, emphasis mine

Specification authors who want to extend WebID via additional specifications, e.g., identity authentication protocols

This is also unclear. Shouldnt the primary way to extend WebID in 2024 be through extension profiles.

@melvincarvalho "additional specifications" should become "extension profiles" for sure, good catch. Do you feel like suggesting this change, maybe? Otherwise I'll do it later.

/chair hat on

I dont think it's a good idea to add more to it at this stage

@melvincarvalho could you clarify whether this is a strong objection or whether you could live with this addition, though as a compromise rather than your favorite way forward?

For context, I do agree that we should focus on implementing the consensus represented by #37 (I'm going to explicitly talk about this in the next chair's overview). That said, I see this PR as part of the "backlog" that preceded our recent work on process, a backlog that I'm slowly working through to make room for what comes next.

[jacoscaz]

/chair hat on

Today is the deadline for review of this PR, which builds upon #29 . @csarven , @kidehen and @TallTed have actively participated in it and no objections have come in - merging. That said, I note that:

• @melvincarvalho might have a strong objection and, if so, I'll make sure to record it in my chair's notes.
• @webr3 would rather we focus on creating new documents rather than iterating on the current ones. However, the majority of this group prefers the latter and, while I personally actually agree with @webr3, I must accomodate the group at large or at least give it my best go before changing strategy.