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

Re: Comments on VCTF Report

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:37:49 -0500
Message-ID: <56C54A9D.5050503@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 02/17/2016 08:56 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> I believe the report should focus on what the task force has done 
> since approval in November [1].

It does.

In addition, four of the Verifiable Claims Task Force members have been
working very hard to whip the use cases document into shape by the
face-to-face and highlight the payments use cases for the IG. Part of
that process was to go back through the survey and extract use cases
that were pertinent. All of that work was done after the VCTF was formed.

> That is why I do not think the survey or other preliminary work done 
> by the CG should be featured

Why would we not include pertinent data from 43 organizations (a healthy
chunk of whom are W3C members) in our findings?

> except to the extent that interviewees had specific observations 
> about them.

The interviews are not the only source of data that the VCTF curated and
studied.

> The full slate of materials from the CG is useful, but not especially
> for the discussion next week at the IG meeting.

How does having more data prevent us from coming to a better conclusion?

> At the FTF meeting we should focus on what path forward would be
> most likely to lead to success.

Agreed.

The VCTF is asserting that the path is writing a narrow charter proposal
with a strong, focused set of use cases and socializing that information
among the interviewees and W3C member companies before taking that
charter to a vote.

> My sense from reading the materials and your response, is that there
>  was not consensus from the interviewees on where to start work.

That's not what I said and I specifically pointed out where interviewees
stated where they said we should start work.

> You wrote "No one said don't proceed with work in this area.” and "No
> one said data model and syntax shouldn’t be worked on.” I would hope
> for support for a particular direction from the interviewees, not
> just lack of opposition.

I pointed to specific places where many of the interviewees supported
working on data formats and syntax. The point I was making with the "no
one said" was that there was not opposition to starting this work, as we
specifically asked about work should be done. If it's not clear that
there is consensus around what a charter should cover then, we should
update the report.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice
https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 04:38:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:27 UTC