Thanks for those suggestions. I agree that discussions with all of these groups make sense, but don't we run the risk to look to ambitious here?

It is an acknowledgement and intention to open communication lines. Also works in both directions, i.e., useful to signal to other Groups that they can reach out to the Solid WG because of shared interests or mutual understanding is necessary. Listing them here is not intended to require high bandwidth communication at all times. Some components/mechanisms in Solid may need to be taken by other Groups, or taken on by Solid. Approaching here with good faith so to not duplicate work or step on other Groups toes.

@pchampin are there any general guidelines available for which group to include and which not to include in this section?

@pchampin are there any general guidelines available for which group to include and which not to include in this section?

I'm not aware of any such guidelines. This is mostly a gut feeling, also based on previous charters that I have seen.

Updated and approved as per https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-03-29.md#clarifies-necessary-coordination-with-w3c-groups-that-solid-protocol-reaches

I have removed cg/privacycg . Will rely on PING instead.

I have added cg/ldpnext . (Have also reached out to LDP Next: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldpnext/2023Mar/0003.html )

Rewrote all descriptions to be specific-enough about the purpose of technical coordination.