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

Re: Terminology poll

From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:36:57 +0100
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <d164152e-72c8-c9a0-4741-e1c40d4a301b@kent.ac.uk>


On 21/06/2017 02:53, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm notifying this community of something going on in VCWG space as we'd
> like some educated input on some terminology changes we're making from
> this CG since the terminology changes are expected to affect this CG.
> 
> ---------------
> Email sent to the VCWG:
> 
> Per my action from the VCWG call today, here is a Google Doc for
> brainstorming the language we'll use to present how the Verifiable
> Claims terminology will be used in the Data Model spec:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NWdpFxbERXZodvbJP_GgGZhkGI54zWmqTuFz-CR2hps/edit
> 
> Please suggest additional phrases where the terminology may be used to
> help people understand what they feel most comfortable with using.
> 
> The language in the document above will be moved to the terminology
> playground app that can be used to try out variations of the suggested
> terminology before people vote:
> 
> https://vcwg-terminology-playground.firebaseapp.com/

this set is limited and does not contain sufficient alternatives e.g.
Subject is missing

David

> 
> Here is a draft terminology poll that does Instant Run-off Voting, this
> will go live next Tuesday at the earliest.
> 
> https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/5724357032673280?p=1
> 
> Here's what we need from those that want to participate by next Monday
> (June 26th):
> 
> 1. Provide unique example phrases that use the terminology in the first
>    document.
> 2. Propose missing terminology that has support from at least two
>    people (and no more than two objections) to the poll.
> 
> Timeline:
> 
> 1. We'll decide whether or not to run the poll on next Tuesdays VCWG
>    call (June 27th).
> 2. The poll will be open for 7 days and will close at the beginning of
>    the following Tuesday (July 4th).
> 
> I suggest we run the poll with the following additional rules:
> 
> * We want as many EDUCATED INDIVIDUAL VOTERS voting as possible. Please
>   abstain from voting if you don't fully understand the consequences of
>   this vote.
> * Please vote in an individual capacity, not on behalf of your
>   organization, we want to know how individuals will react to the
>   language (not what your official corporate position is). If you have
>   to ask your co-workers how they voted, you're doing it wrong. :)
> * The result of the vote is non-binding, the final decision will be
>   made by the Editors and the Chairs of the VCWG. This is a data
>   gathering exercise.
> 
> -- manu
> 
Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 20:37:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:38 UTC