- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:34:31 -0400
- To: Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>, "W3C Digital Verification CG (Public List)" <public-digital-verification@w3.org>
On 07/22/2017 03:40 PM, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote: > - Keep the name "Credentials CG" +1, keep the name. I've found the arguments made by folks like DavidC, JoeA, ChristopherA, KimHD, RichardV, and others to be compelling... they've changed my mind on whether or not we should change the name or not. Fundamentally just about everything we do results in a credential. That is, asserting a credential of some kind is typically the result of all of the specifications we're working on. Credentials can be self-sovereign, or they can be centralized (and there are solid use cases for both). I think the community cares more about working on the self-sovereign credential problem as that results in empowering the most number of people on the planet, including those in vulnerable situations. On another level, we need to change the misguided notion that "credentials" are just usernames, passwords, and Google/Facebook login tokens. It's for those reasons that I'm now strongly in favor of keeping the name. It's specific, it's what we're doing, and it creates the least disruption for this community. We'll have to fight for it w/ the "security experts", but now that we've got our own "security experts" and if we're united behind the name, it'll make that fight easier. > - State very clearly in the mission that we're focused on > self-sovereignty, and that compatibility with centralized systems is > also within scope. +1 > - Keep the Credentials CG and Digital Verification CG united +1 -- 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, 24 July 2017 14:34:55 UTC