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: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 21:20:28 -0800
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <56DE611C.4000505@sunshine.net>

LOL  3X   :-)

S.


On 3/7/16 9:09 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> 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 <mailto:ij@w3.org>>
> wrote:
>
>
>      > On Mar 7, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Manu Sporny
>     <msporny@digitalbazaar.com <mailto: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 <mailto:ij@w3.org>>
>     http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>     Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 05:21:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 8 March 2016 05:21:01 UTC