W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2015

Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2015-12-08

From: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:57:52 -0500
Message-Id: <1449611872852.0.23886@zoe>
To: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Gregg Kellogg and Dave Longley for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:

http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2015-12-08/

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2015-12-08

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Dec/0014.html
Topics:
  1. Introductions to New Participants
  2. Review of Scope
  3. Review Stakeholders
  4. Review Task Force Operation
  5. Review Success Criteria
  6. Next Steps
Resolutions:
  1. Adopt the Scope statement as it exists in the Task Force 
    Proposal wiki.
  2. Adopt the Stakeholders section as it stands in the wiki.
  3. Adopt the Task Force Operation section as it stands in the 
    wiki.
  4. Adopt the success criteria as it stands in the wiki.
Organizer:
  Manu Sporny
Scribe:
  Gregg Kellogg and Dave Longley
Present:
  Gregg Kellogg, Manu Sporny, Jason Weaver, Chris Webber, Bob Way, 
  Henry Story, Sunny Lee, David Ezell, Stuart Sutton, Matt Collier, 
  John Tibbetts, Daniel C. Burnett, Dave Longley, Shane McCarron, 
  Greg Kidd, Richard Varn, Nate Otto, Eric Korb, Carla Casili, Erik 
  Anderson, Rob Trainer, Dmitriy Nesterkin
Audio:
  http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2015-12-08/audio.ogg

Gregg Kellogg is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  Last week we went through the problem statement and 
  have agreement from those participating. We can change if we have 
  consensus on changes.
  … Today, we’ll try to get concensus on the remaining items.
Manu Sporny:  We’re going to go through the points on the agenda 
  as time allows. Any changes before we start?
None.

Topic: Introductions to New Participants

Jason Weaver: Jason Weaver with Parchment, interested in work as 
  it relates to educational credentialing
Chris Webber: Christopher Allan Webber, lead developer on GNU 
  MediaGoblin, working also on the W3C Social Working Group, 
  interested in work as it relates to federation and other 
  distributed network problems
Bob Way: I’m Bob Way, I work at Ripple and have been discussing 
  verifiable claims with Greg Kidd as an enhancement to Ripple.
Henry Story: I am Henry Story ( full CV on http://bblfish.net/ ) 
  I am an Apache member and am joining as part of the W3C . I have 
  worked on WebID series of specs . see http://webid.info/spec/ , 
  which I implemented along with Http-Signatures on client and 
  server ( see https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/issues/52 ). 
  What I am interested is authentication and authorization for 
  distributed social networks. What we have at present is probably 
  enough to get us going for a while, but we're looking out for 
  what might be enabled by credentials.
Sunny Lee: Hi everyone Sunny Lee here. I was previously director 
  of open badges at mozilla and have been the digital credentialing 
  space for the past 4 years. At Mozilla I helped oversee the 
  growth and adoption of the open badges spec from nearly 0 to 25K 
  orgs. excited to see these efforts around digital credentialing 
  (verified claims) coalesce.

Topic: Review of Scope

Manu Sporny: 
  https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Out_of_Scope
Manu Sporny:  The previous link is for things which are 
  specifically out of scope: those things the task force will not 
  work on, such as choice of technology.
  … Such technical discussions should happen in a WG with an 
  appropriate charter.
  … But, we can talk about the eco-system, but not make any 
  technial descisions or recommendations.
  … Scope: problem statement and deliverables.
Manu Sporny:  We’ll name out-of-scope items explicitly
Manu Sporny: 
  https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Scope
Manu Sporny:  Scope updated to be explicit.

PROPOSAL:  Adopt the Scope statement as it exists in the Task 
  Force Proposal wiki.

David Ezell: +1
Stuart Sutton: +1
Chris Webber: +1
Matt Collier: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
John Tibbetts: +1 On scoping statement
Daniel C. Burnett: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Shane McCarron: +1 To the updated scope section
Greg Kidd: +1
Richard Varn: +1
Henry Story: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +0 (Browser refresh issues)
Bob Way: +1
Shane McCarron: I note that I didn't like that there was a 
  section called "out of scope"
Gregg Kellogg: +1 (Now that page is refreshed)

RESOLUTION: Adopt the Scope statement as it exists in the Task 
  Force Proposal wiki.

Topic: Review Stakeholders

Manu Sporny: 
  https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Stakeholders
Manu Sporny:  We’re trying to make clear who the stake-holders 
  are. These are stake-holders who answered the survey and wanted 
  to be involved.
Gregg Kellogg:  Governments should be stakeholders too. [scribe 
  assist by Manu Sporny]
Nate Otto:  What is the sense that NACS is an issuer.
Chris Webber: (While technically true, that seems like an 
  alarming direction for this group to go)
  … okay, major oil companies, for example.
Chris Webber: Re: government backdoors
Henry Story: From the UK we don't really know what NACS is. A 
  hyperlink perhaps to a wikipedia page would help.
Shane McCarron: Companies that provide credential management 
  software are a category
David Ezell: NACS - http://www.nacsonline.com/Pages/default.aspx
Shane McCarron: Okay
Eric Korb: +1
Manu Sporny:  I believe Credential Management software are IDPs.
Henry Story: Government agencies of particualar interest should 
  be DMV
Daniel C. Burnett:  I think “government” is a very broad term. 
  It’s difficult for us to discuss them coherently.
Chris Webber: +1 Dan
Henry Story: Universities that wish to publish degree credentials
Dave Longley: +1 Dan's comments
Daniel C. Burnett:  I’m concerned that once we list them, we 
  would actively need to seek every posible governemental 
  organization to be involved.
  … The needs can very quite substantially.
Eric Korb: +1
Manu Sporny:  The only government we’ve heard from is New 
  Zeeland. The US Federal Resrve has noted their interest, but not 
  yet joined.
Dave Longley: I think there's a presumption that government/law 
  enforcement will always be potentially involved in any of these 
  systems... but somewhat in the periphery
Henry Story: One should ask the Estonian government, as they have 
  a very good reputation in this space
Eric Korb:  I think we might want to add “authoritative bodies” 
  or other organizations with some specific authority. That’s often 
  government, but could be unions or other organizations.
Manu Sporny:  Are they issures? Do some issures need special 
  consideration.
Eric Korb: +1 Regulutory compliance
Dave Longley:  Govenment does make sense in the issure sense, but 
  we’re also interested in regulatory compliance. In these cases, 
  they might not be issuers.
Manu Sporny:  We might need to mention regulatory compliance, 
  specifically in the benefits section.
  … Perhaps we need a section on regulators as being a 
  stake-holder.
Gregg Kellogg:  These might not be issuers of things - not direct 
  consumers / not direct issuers - but indirect consumers/issuers. 
  [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Chris Webber: :\
Dave Longley:  We want to be sure we can comply with regulatory 
  concerns, but maybe not call them stake-holders.
Daniel C. Burnett:  In the IETF, they use is “Lawfull Intercept”.
  … IETF says they have no intention to expressly create support 
  for Lawfull Intercept. It’s virtually impossible for one agency 
  to provide for compliance in all regions.
Daniel C. Burnett:  +1 Deciding to leave "lawful intercept" (or, 
  backdoors) out of scope [scribe assist by Chris Webber]
Dave Longley: +1 To adding "regulatory compliance" etc. in a few 
  other places for each stakeholder.
Daniel C. Burnett: The issue I was bringing up is that compliance 
  means different things in different geopolitical regions, so it's 
  better to stay out of that space if we can just because it can 
  take too long to figure out how to accommodate compliance for the 
  whole world
Manu Sporny:  We can add some parentheticals. This requires some 
  lawyering on the language, but is intended to provide clear terms 
  for different roles and that there are clear users behind each.
Chris Webber: Does anyone else hear music playing over things?
Henry Story: Yes, not too bad
Carla Casili: Dance break
Manu Sporny:  Does anyone have issues with the stakeholders 
  section?

PROPOSAL:  Adopt the Stakeholders section as it stands in the 
  wiki.

Daniel C. Burnett: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Dave Longley: +1
John Tibbetts: +1
Chris Webber: +1
Matt Collier: +1
Bob Way: +1
David Ezell: +1
Shane McCarron: +1
Richard Varn: +1
Greg Kidd: +1
Stuart Sutton: +1
Erik Anderson: +1

RESOLUTION: Adopt the Stakeholders section as it stands in the 
  wiki.

Henry Story: +1 I had some suggestions above ( eg: DMV, Estonia )

Topic: Review Task Force Operation

Manu Sporny: 
  https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Task_Force_Operation
Manu Sporny:  We’re basically saying that when the TF is formed, 
  it will be formed as described:
Be composed of representatives from the Financial, Education, 
  Healthcare, NGO, and Government sectors
Have individual recorded interview calls at times that work for 
  the interviewees
Have weekly calls starting on Tuesdays at 11am ET (but could be 
  rescheduled for other times that work better for participants) on 
  a to-be-determined teleconference bridge
Work on completing the identified deliverables
Will report its findings to the WPIG by early February
Daniel C. Burnett: Manu, did we expressly approve the benefits 
  section? (or did I miss you saying we wouldn't)
Manu Sporny:  We skipped it, it's at the end of the agenda.
Daniel C. Burnett: (Sorry, thanks.)
Manu Sporny:  The proposal should be that it is composed of the 
  stake-holders described in the proposal.
David Ezell:  Two different lists might be confusing.
Daniel C. Burnett: How about "will encourage participation from 
  the stakeholders"
Manu Sporny:  The participants should be at least those listed.
Dave Longley: +1 To burn
Dave Longley: Better because we can't force them to participate.
Daniel C. Burnett: I don't want us to be stuck because we 
  couldn't get one of them to join
Manu Sporny: Now read "will encourage participation from at least 
  the stakeholders identified in this proposal"
Dave Longley: +1
John Tibbetts: +1
Stuart Sutton: +1
Richard Varn: +1
Manu Sporny:  Do we want to say we’re trying to be inclusive and 
  there are no restrictions on joining as long as you’re 
  constructive.
Chris Webber: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Greg Kidd: +1
Nate Otto: +1 No objection here (just joining on chat have been 
  on audio for the last few minutes)
Manu Sporny:  The TF is open to non-W3C members, but once it goes 
  to the WG there are membership requirements.
Daniel C. Burnett: +1 About inclusive as long as we include 
  Manu's second part about constructiveness
Chris Webber: One thing that could be helpful is having a way to 
  understand how to handle when someone goes into unconstructive 
  territory (could adopt one of the boilerplate code of conduct 
  documents out there)
Dave Longley: "Anyone is permitted to provide constructive input"
Manu Sporny: "Anyone is encouraged to participate so long as they 
  are providing constructive input"
Henry Story: Constructive seems like the equivalent to "working 
  code" in the IETF
Gregg Kellogg: +1 To manu
Chris Webber: Well I also think "constructive behavior" is 
  important
Stuart Sutton: +1 To Manu
Dave Longley: Should be "everyone" in manu's version.
Chris Webber: Manu, right that was a reply to "working code" as 
  bblfish raised it
Henry Story: +1
Chris Webber: +1 To manu
David Ezell: +0 Is concerned that it's non-informational.
Shane McCarron: +1 To manu with "everyone"
David Ezell:  I think people already expect constructive 
  participation.
Manu Sporny:  I’m trying to make it clear that you don’t need to 
  be W3C members.
Richard Varn: +1 Constructive behavior
David Ezell:  “Membership in the taskforce is open to the wider 
  community of stake-holders”
Manu Sporny: "Membership in the Task Force is open to the wider 
  community of stakeholders (everyone)"
Dave Longley: "Task force participation is open to the public; 
  the only requirement is constructive input."
Chris Webber: Fine by me
Chris Webber: +1 To either
David Ezell: +1 Dave longley
Richard Varn: Wide community ok +1
Daniel C. Burnett: +1 To either manu or dlongley text
Stuart Sutton: +1 To either
John Tibbetts: +1 To dlongley
Henry Story: +1  To dlongley
Erik Anderson: +1 So long as W3C doesnt contest membership

PROPOSAL:  Adopt the Task Force Operation section as it stands in 
  the wiki.

Shane McCarron: I note that the second bullet is NOT parallel 
  with the others
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Bob Way: +1
Dave Longley: +1
David Ezell: 1
Carla Casili: +1
Stuart Sutton: +1
John Tibbetts: +1
Erik Anderson: +1
Nate Otto: +1
Carla Casili: It's not grammatically parallel
Daniel C. Burnett: +1
Shane McCarron: +1 But editorially want to fix item two to be 
  gramatically parallel

RESOLUTION: Adopt the Task Force Operation section as it stands 
  in the wiki.

Shane McCarron:  Notes gramatical inconcistency which is an 
  editorial fix.

Topic: Review Success Criteria

Manu Sporny: 
  https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Success_criteria
Manu Sporny:  This says the we can either not add value, or a WG 
  charter which is generally acceptable and can go to vote.
  … We thought the IG should provide the starter, and the TF 
  provide documentation.
  … Alternatively, TG writes charter and hands off to IG.
Dave Longley: "Sufficient documentation for the WPIG to create a 
  well-socialized W3C Credentials Working Group charter."
Dave Longley: "Produce sufficient documentation for the WPIG to 
  create a well-socialized W3C Credentials Working Group charter."
Erik Anderson:  I’d leave a —placeholder— WG, not credentials, as 
  that might not make it through.
Manu Sporny:  Documentation to support the creation of a WG.
Dave Longley:  It seems that the success criteria aren’t 
  symetric.
  … Basically, the result should be to create or not to create.
Shane McCarron: Clear documentation demonstrating that W3C *can* 
  add value along with sufficient information to create a working 
  group charter...
Nate Otto: Is not putting a draft charter into our scope going to 
  slow things down if we decide yea one should be created?
Carla Casili: Now all we're delivering is documentation
Erik Anderson:  Why not actually create the proposal?
Manu Sporny: Carla, yes, task force delivers documentation in 3 
  months - Working Group does the technical work to solve the 
  problem.
Manu Sporny:  I don’t think that would slow us down. We’ve been 
  building momentum in the Credentials CG. The larger community 
  isn’t aware of the work, so we need to get buy-in from a larger 
  community.
  … The job of the TF is to do that outreach in a neutral 
  fashion.
Shane McCarron: Note that we would need to modify the 
  deliverables area so that it says something like "A widely 
  socialized Verifiable Claims Working Group charter, or sufficient 
  documentation so that such a charter can be drafted"
  … The outcome will be a WG to address the technical solutions.
  … It’s difficult to have this discussion and propose a 
  particular technical solution.
Carla Casili: All good
Manu Sporny:  Charter writing is pretty straight-forward once you 
  have a good problem statement. Trying to block out the work to be 
  focus and scoped.
Manu Sporny: 
  https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Success_criteria
Manu Sporny:  (Asks for concensus on success critera)

PROPOSAL:  Adopt the success criteria as it stands in the wiki.

John Tibbetts: +1
David Ezell: +1
Shane McCarron: +1 On the success criteria
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Stuart Sutton: +1
Nate Otto: +1
Daniel C. Burnett: +1
Matt Collier: +1
Carla Casili: +1
Bob Way: +1
Erik Anderson: +1
Richard Varn: +1
Chris Webber: +1

RESOLUTION: Adopt the success criteria as it stands in the wiki.

Topic: Next Steps

Manu Sporny:  We need to talk about breaking this work into 
  phases ... so we can convince other organizations that we're 
  doing it in small chunks (haven't bitten off more than we can 
  chew). [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
Dave Longley is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  We'll also be bringing in experts in the field, 
  Brad Hill, Dick Hardt, etc. Having them look at the problem 
  statement and give us feedback.
Manu Sporny:  There will be a series of interviews, they may not 
  all occur on this call but we'll record all of them.
Manu Sporny:  We may be doing 3-4 interviews a week that are an 
  hour long with each of these experts.
Manu Sporny:  Do interviews and start documentation. [scribe 
  assist by Gregg Kellogg]
Carla Casili: Thanks, all!
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2015 21:58:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:26 UTC