W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Focusing on implementations

From: Stone, Matt <matt.stone@pearson.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:38:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+w1=RRX5DcMVRFZ_6CeJfj9TCGhrTxYdM7tp_SgSAUZgY4_Sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Manu,

Thanks for the feedback and insight.  The chairs had a meeting late last
week for a bit of a retrospective and planning session. These topics where
an important agenda item for us.  We are putting together a routine time
for the chairs to review progress and plan for the group call​ - these
meeting should start this week.

This chair meetings will have these objectives (initially):

   - Review/overall project health and progress, adapt if needed.
   - Review and order issues, highlight items for the group call, and
   publish an agenda
   - Review progress on issues and tasks where we have volunteers -- and
   beat the bushes, if necessary.

As we iterate, I suspect these will evolve.  Thanks for your patience and
pressure. :)

-stone


=====
Matt Stone
501-291-1599


On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> Some thoughts on what the group is focusing on currently.
>
> We're spending too much time on use cases and not enough time on
> technical discussion/implementation. We should talk about an
> implementation strategy... required functionality for libraries plus
> test suite. That will give the technical folks on the call something
> specific to focus on (as discussing the use cases don't do that).
>
> I'm also concerned that the use cases document isn't changing as a
> result of these use case discussions. We are talking, but the specs
> aren't changing. It would be healthy to get some specific technical
> items under discussion in the specs. I think outlining the required
> functionality for libraries and a test suite would help ignite that
> discussion.
>
> I know that it's difficult to change the specs when it's not clear what
> the group wants, but it's also not healthy to continue to discuss issues
> w/o seeing changes in the documents. Folks have now volunteered to do a
> number of things and I'm not seeing progress on some of the items that
> folks have volunteered to do (I'm guilty of this):
>
> http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2017-01-17/#69
>
> I'm concerned that if we don't start having some of this discussion that
> we're going to start losing implementer interest and will then have to
> re-stoke those fires once the WG spins up.
>
> In short, less talking, more doing.
>
> The Chairs are going to have to stay on people to do the stuff they
> volunteered to do (and provide direction for the folks that are new to
> this work). I think most folks don't know what the next step is after
> volunteering. The next step is "draft some text for the group to review,
> get reviews, put it into the specification".
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
>
>
Received on Monday, 30 January 2017 14:39:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:34 UTC