Migrate all CG assets to W3C space

[csarven]

The Solid CG historically has material under the solid org and has largely published material under https://solidproject.org/TR/ . It has served well.

This repository is allocated by W3C for the Solid CG. The governance of all CG assets belongs under W3C space.

The CG should migrate all the CG's assets to W3C space, including but not limited to:

• The repositories of work items listed under https://solidproject.org/TR/
• Publish work items under, e.g., w3.org, w3c-cg.github.io, etc.
• Add redirects to new locations where possible.

[elf-pavlik]

https://github.com/w3c-cg

CGs can get a repo based on their shortname. If the group needs multiple repos, additional repos prefixed with that shortname can also requested, although if a Community Group expects to need many different repos, the Community Group might consider creating and operating its own GitHub organization.

Emphasis mine. In @w3c-cg github org chairs only get mainainer access, in recent PR to w3c-cg/solid I wasn't even able to commit an inline suggestion on a PR. I don't think this is something we should do without planning and testing all the functionality first.

[csarven]

I can assure you that I'm well aware of what you're quoting.

W3C makes this repo and particular configuration possible, and many CGs are running just fine under the same, if not a similar set up. I do not think the CG chairs not having access to commit inline suggestions on a PR that they did not author, among other things, is a show stopper in any way.

That said, I do generally agree with you on planning and testing the essentials and taking care of some useful things such as redirects.

[melvincarvalho]

wasn't even able to commit

How is access determined in the W3C Community Groups org?

Before making changes, it would be good to define a clear, role-based access model. For example, current and former chairs should have maintainer permissions to carry out PR review and editorial tasks.

[csarven]

Each work item typically has its own editors whom are responsible to carry out editorial tasks. The chairs do not normally have any special powers. They may have editorial or other responsibilities over agenda and minutes (if they PR), admin work in general, but that's about it. And, scribes (or someone else that's pre-arranged) are expected to follow up on publishing the minutes (PR): https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/meetings/README.md . In the Solid CG, the practice so far has been that the scribe or the chairs PR the minutes.

Every participant that abides by the W3C Conduct has the right to review.

I would also point out the Solid CG's guidelines on processing PRs: https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#processing-pull-requests and even there the chairs are not expected to merge anything beyond a registry table / index of sorts. Everything else falls on the responsibility of either the editor of a work item or author of a PR (which includes any CG participant).

So, W3C's default access controls is sufficient.

[melvincarvalho]

chairs do not normally have any special powers

Agree @elf-pavlik here.

This is a governance change, not just a migration.

A review is a prerequisite before proceeding, covering access model, permissions, IPR, and core workflows (PR review, suggestions, merges) on both spaces.

Until that review is completed and agreed, migration of assets into the W3C Community Groups space should not proceed.

[csarven]

Current chairs have maintainer role on the W3C repo. There is no rule or expectation about former chairs retaining their maintainer role in W3C space. I've already outline the current Solid CG guidelines where the chairs are not expected to have anything above and beyond regular operation of things. So, once again, W3C's default access role of maintainer for chairs is sufficient and aligned with all other W3C CGs, and in fact, it actually gives more privileges on paper.

I am a former chair, and I neither require maintainer role on this repo or any of the CG work items currently under solid. Everything is running fine. If you still believe that all former chairs should have maintainer role, you're welcome to make that request and follow through, and if the CG agrees that's desirable, we could check with W3C Team to see if that's acceptable. Otherwise, there is nothing to further to discuss on that matter.

[elf-pavlik]

If we want a multi repo setup where editors have maintainer access over the drafts they edit, new editors can be added and old can move to former editors, in @w3c-cg org we can do non of that without having to ask W3C staff to do all that admin stuff. README of that org was created afer my inquiry about details on W3C handles CG repos. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-council/2025Oct/0002.html My impression was that for more sphisticated setups W3C recommends CG to run their own github org.

[melvincarvalho]

My impression was that for more sphisticated setups W3C recommends CG to run their own github org.

My understanding is similar. W3C CGs can either use a single-repo model or link to an external GitHub org, and the choice is left to the group.

In practice, it tends to come down to coordination overhead. Smaller CGs often benefit from a single repo with simpler governance. Larger or more active groups may benefit from an org model, at the cost of managing multiple repositories and editor access more explicitly.

For a CG with the scope and activity level of Solid, an org-based setup seems reasonable, though it does introduce additional coordination responsibilities.

[csarven]

I generally agree that CG-managed org would be preferable for the Solid CG as it holds several work items, e.g., similar to https://github.com/w3c-ccg/ , and we can reach out to them about their challenges and management tips. It doesn't have to be on GitHub and perhaps now is a good time as any to consider transitioning to https://codeberg.org/ (or similar). It would need a simple and clear process for the sitting chairs to manage, and smooth transition to new chairs, to handle most day-to-day stuff. That said, it may be preferable to see if the ownership of the org can be handled by a neutral hosting party such as W3C, which is why I initially suggested that the CG assets move to W3C space (such as this this repo).

[elf-pavlik]

It doesn't have to be on GitHub and perhaps now is a good time as any to consider transitioning to https://codeberg.org/ (or similar).

While I sympathise with the spirit of this suggestion. I see us already struggling with picking up momentum using familiar tools. IMO this would slow us down even further so I don't find it a pragmatic move, at least for now.

[melvincarvalho]

Agree with @elf-pavlik. CGs typically choose either a single-repo or an org model, not both.

For Solid's scope, an org-based setup is the better fit.

We should keep assets under the Solid org, where the CG can manage access, roles, and workflows directly, rather than depend on W3C-managed constraints.