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

Re: Comments on draft charter [Was: Agenda: Verifiable Claims Teleconference - Tuesday, March 8th 2016]

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 05:09:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1Re_hapDe1ukhXZjEft+Oc8809fUL18meA1_R6+i4vQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Hi Ian,

What is your plan here?

I'm very concerned that the group was led to focusing their efforts on
Payment Use-Cases and that it appears the work done has been made redundant
by beneficiaries of the work.

Is it approximate that the supposition within the payments progression
event; suggested that work provided limited benefit to any-such
beneficiaries / members / draft spec authors.

I am concerned that these events may present a high-degree of endorsed
tactical execution sophistication, that should perhaps be reflected from
the outset in the draft agenda for credentials as to prevent any upset that
may likely occur should the same methodological approach be used for this
additional body of work.  Having a comprehension of related issues, I fear
to some extent these sorts of problems have already been illustrated.

Would it be ok if we were able to address these issues in the draft agenda
as to support the transparent nature of the work and indeed focus our
efforts towards the end-goal?  Is it deemed unnecessary?  Have I missed
something entirely?  Noting a related consideration being the work of
Melvin which i first knew as WebCredits[1] that appears to form a
constituent of the work that has been in-turn replaced..

The List Servers provide a great resource for humanity.  I cannot alter the
dates nor the content of the correspondence whether it be good, bad,
modified by A.I. (iE: 'auto-correct') to unfortunate outcomes; or indeed
text resulting from unfortunate circumstances.

*USECASE*

Perhaps in future the useful list-items can be formed into a ledger that
relates in-turn to the basis and growth of solutions, which in-turn may
better reflect contributors of the work through various stages.

EXAMPLE
Tim produces an IPTV solutions definition document for his Start-up where
he thinks the way to solve local Free TV markets is by including the use of
LDP to support CDN like capabilities in addition to adding RDF and
WebID-TLS related capabilities to TV's alongside the use of HTML5 and RWW
to both protect privacy via localised servers that can provide both privacy
and targeted content interactions, as well as producing a new 'content
packaging' standard that incorporates the various elements as to support a
new 'designed for HybridTV' distribution standard around the concept of
'hypermedia content packages', that support multiple devices,
social-interactions and an array of other HTML5 and linked-data powered
user-experiences.

The Billionaire is interested and asks for a brief, having been aware of
his previous works and submissions to various industry parties.  The paper
is received by the billionaire who is able to forward the work for
'consideration' by those he has put in-charge of factoring works for
industry wide delivery. So the billionaire says thankyou, but very much for
explaining it to me but not interested.

Tim's co-author of the document struggles with his economic situation that
has not been helped by the failure of these works; and despite the love he
has for his young children and partner, ends his life in the following
weeks.  Whilst this was not because he helped Tim specifically, the outcome
of that work certainly didn't help, nor will it be recorded in history in
association to the development of an industry and the factors that led to
those outcomes.

Article I, Section 8 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers>,
Clause 8 of the United States Constitution
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution>, known as the
Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress>:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Whilst the basis in which Tim and his contributors have gone about seeking
to add value to the world around them, has merit; the realities of how
these systems of society work are quite different in reality.

Tim's work on the TV solution is deemed to have a negative value to all
stakeholders, regardless of the implications born by the work carried out
by tim and the contributors willing to help him; The transaction, due to
Tim not having factored the solution in a manner that supports the best
interests of the 'primary beneficiary' (similar to the 'golden rule'); or
perhaps indeed due to Tim's inability to easily prove and/or pursue the
matter in a court with available facts results in a specified and readily
occurring use-case that may be solved via the production of new products
using existing technologies, yet the willingness to do so is broadly
unclear.

As Tim would have been better off for his own health and that of his family
and others around him by doing something else, almost anything else, Tim
considers what means are available as to protect himself and others from
the very troubling outcomes that have occurred as a result of factors that
at the time were beyond his control, but should be examined for future
consideration.

Tim could have simply provided his ideas / work to the largest organisation
in the world helping them to take over the local industry economically
supporting the billionaire, as to afford the work of art; a greater chance
of success, without necessarily supporting the ideological statements
otherwise put upon tim by the billionaire.

Yet, Tim knows that if he does this, then the stakeholders for the works
locally will still come about, it just that this will happen through
licensing from international firms and that if Tim had any ideas that were
useful, at least he'd be able to see that work output overtime on systems
such as public list servers, in-turn supporting basic claims such as - 'not
crazy' or 'have been working on useful things' (rather than being a
criminal, or some such alternative).

Tim understands these issues relate in-turn to local markets and the means
in which others gain employment and/or paid work, either via payees who may
be engaged on a local or international basis which in-turn may relate to
taxation revenue, social-security and other issues.  Given the system has
been developed as to provide Tim a negative value for his time and effort
('life') Tim needs to consider what to do next.





Tim.H.
[1] https://webcredits.org/

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 at 15:18 Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 7, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 1. Draft Charter Proposal[1]
>
> Hi Manu,
>
> Here are some comments on the draft charter [1].
>
> Ian
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/vctf/charter/proposal.html
>
> =====
>
> * The section titled “Goals” does not really express any goals. I think
> it’s important to state them clearly.
>   I also suggest deleting the first paragraph or moving to the ‘About this
> charter” section.
>
> * "The findings suggest that there is consensus to address a @@@narrow set
> of use cases@@@“
>  I believe that is a contentious statement and suggest that it be replace
> by:
>
>    “The Web Payments Interest Group recommended that the task force draft
> a charter to determine
>     whether there is consensus within the community (including those
> interviewed) for the scope of work.
>
> * I think you can delete "Development of this charter was supported in
> part by the European Union's 7th Research Framework
>    Programme (FP7/ 2013-2015) under grant agreement nº611327 - HTML5 Apps.”
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 05:09:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 8 March 2016 05:09:50 UTC