W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2016

Verifiable Claims Working Group Draft Charter Questionnaire

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:07:22 -0400
Message-ID: <57113BEA.7010901@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Hi Credentials CG Participants,

The Verifiable Claims Task Force would like to know your position on the
Verifiable Claims editor's draft charter. If you've already responded to
this questionnaire, you can ignore this email.

We need to know what you think about the charter as we're trying to
determine if the work is ready to be moved forward into a Working Group
at W3C or if something else should happen at this point in time.

If you support the work, it is imperative that you let us know at this
point (lack of support at this point will result in the work not moving
forward). Similarly, if you do not support the work, it is important
that you let us know why (so we can adjust appropriately).

We've put together a short 15 minute questionnaire to help speed your
responses:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wS32QHfxeqVu32LyZt57fVjqnywdET2ytLcaHhVxbFY/viewform

If you don't have access to Google Forms, the survey above is included
below as plain text. Please respond as soon as you are able to.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Verifiable Claims Working Group Draft Charter Questionnaire

This is an *informal* request to review an Editor's Draft of the
Verifiable Claims Working Group Charter. Please try to respond in
a way that you think will reflect your organization's viewpoint if
there was a future official request to review the draft charter.
All individual responses will be kept W3C member confidential and
DO NOT represent the position of your organization, this is just
an informal request. Aggregate numbers will be shared publicly. We
are attempting to seek input from the Web Community and W3C
Advisory Committee members around whether or not to start work at
W3C on Verifiable Claims.

The draft charter can be found here:
http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/vcwg-draft.html

The condensed use cases can be found here:
http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/

The FAQ can be found here:
http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/faq.html

The Verifiable Claims Final Report can be found here:
http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/VCTF-final-report.html

Questions marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

1. What is your name? *

2. Which organization would you represent if we asked you to
   eventually make a decision on this charter? *

3. What is your email address? *

4. The Verifiable Claims Problem Statement is accurate *

You can review the problem statement here:

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/vcwg-draft.html#problem

[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Mostly Agree
[ ] Neutral, I don't have strong feelings about it
[ ] Mostly Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Other :

5. The Goals proposed by the Verifiable Claims work are good goals to
   pursue *

You can review the goals here:
http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/vcwg-draft.html#goals

[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Mostly Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Mostly Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Other :

6. The Scope of Work and Deliverables would help address the Problem
   Statement *

You can review the Scope of Work here:
http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/vcwg-draft.html#scope

and the Deliverables here:
http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/vcwg-draft.html#deliverables

[ ] Strongly Agree, all problems would be solved
[ ] Mostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statement
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Mostly Disagree, we'd make very little progress on the problem
    statement
[ ] Strongly Disagree, this work is misguided
[ ] Other :

7. My organizations verifiable claims problems would be addressed if
   the use cases in the Use Cases document were addressed *

You can view the use cases document here:
http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/

[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Mostly Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Mostly Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Other :

8. My organization would participate in the following way if a
   Verifiable Claims Working Group were to materialize at W3C *

The question that we're asking here is if your organization is
likely to join W3C and participate directly in the work. If the
majority of the responses that we get back show little to no
interest in actually joining and participating in the work, it
will be a good signal that there is no interest in solving this
particular problem at this point in time. There are two factors
for joining 1) The work is important to your organization, and 2)
you have personnel and money to join W3C. It costs roughly
$2K-$8K/year for small companies (less than $50M USD in revenue),
universities, and government organizations to join W3C. It costs
roughly $79K/year for very large multi-national companies (>$50M
USD in revenue) to join W3C.

[ ] We are a W3C member and WOULD participate
[ ] We are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participate
[ ] We are a W3C member but WOULD NOT participate
[ ] We are NOT a W3C member, but would perform periodic reviews of the
    technical work
[ ] We are NOT a W3C member and we WOULD NOT participate
[ ] Other :

9. If your organization would NOT participate, what changes would we
   have to make to the draft charter to change your mind?

10. Is there any other input that you have on the Verifiable Claims
    Draft Charter?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern
http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
Received on Friday, 15 April 2016 19:07:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:28 UTC