[wg/solid] make it clear that the WG will abide by the W3C process

[pchampin]

Some reviewers are concerned that the adopted draft for Solid Protocol v1.0 refers to the Solid process, which is different from the current W3C process. It should therefore be made clear that, by entering the W3C REC track, the deliverable of the WG will be developed entirely under the W3C process.

From https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2023Oct/0007.html

WG Charter appears to, by reference, setup a BDFL for all Solid related specifications which is unacceptable. Here's how: Charter Deliverables (https://www.w3.org/2023/09/proposed-solid-wg-charter.html#deliverables) links to Solid Protocol, Version 0.10.0 (https://solidproject.org/TR/2022/protocol-20221231) has a Status of This Document (https://solidproject.org/TR/2022/protocol-20221231#sotd) which links to Solid process (https://github.com/solid/process) which says "The following describes how changes to the specifications in the Solid ecosystem may be proposed and accepted. Anyone may submit a proposal to alter this process; such proposals will be approved only by Tim Berners-Lee, who is the Solid Director."

and other reviews (member-visible only)

[plehegar]

ALL Working Groups MUST operate under the W3C Process. The W3C Process does give room for Groups to operate but it still must operate under the Process.

[svgeesus]

One way forward would be to submit Solid as a Member Submission. That would omit the unhelpful details about a different process, etc. The submission covering letter would indicate a transfer of maintenance to W3C. That submission could then be cited as the adopted draft.

Another option would be for the charter to say "no draft" and for the WG to later resolve to adopt the document referenced above as an ED (under W3C Process of course) and then a FPWD.

[jyasskin]

I suggest closing this, since the replacement charter is out for AC review, and the input document from Solid doesn't mention the Solid Process anymore.