[wg/solid] broaden the scope: charter should be about a problem, not a solution

[pchampin]

The group should be chartered to solve a problem, not rubberstamp a preconceived solution.
Reviewers raising this point have different ideas on how broader the scope of the WG should be made.

From https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2023Oct/0003.html

On a separate note, IMHO, the title of the working group should describe
the problem we aim to solve, not any particular solution we expect to
arrive at. I therefore suggest changing it to "Personal Data Store WG" or
something similar. In line with this, its mission statement "to standardize
the Solid Protocol" sound a bit too preconceived, something more open
minded like "to produce the best web standards for Personal Data Stores"
might be better. Our mission is not to use a particular technology, our
mission is to achieve that technology's benefits.

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

Technology-specific scope. As I (Tantek) gave feedback both privately and
openly at the May AC meeting (looking for a minutes citation), W3C should
charter (especially brand new) WGs to solve problem areas rather than push
specific solutions. It is undesirable to charter a new WG that is focused
on a specific technical solution (SOLID) rather than solving the problem
areas e.g. “personal data store”. That said, this may be the wrong
granularity of problem space as well. See latter point about existing
Social Web WG RECs addressing parts of the problem space. Perhaps a
combination (since the two often overlap) “Social & Personal Web &
Data” would better describe this problem space and thus a WG to both
update existing W3C RECs in this larger problem area, as well as include in
scope additional approaches like SOLID that have been incubated and have
explicit multi-implementer interest/commitment/implementations seeking to
interoperate.

and other reviews (member-visible only)