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

Re: [TIME CRITICAL] Provide input on Verifiable Claims Charter revision 2

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:28:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1CBT7xa6gkVrzkq8srCZcL5PFycw32Y3sd6ccaTsUY1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 at 02:02 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 03/28/2017 10:23 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> > debate must only be important for members...
>
> No, it's clearly important for everyone to engage in debate.


Important, but not clear.
https://twitter.com/SailingDigital/status/847011685441290240

Andrew Macleod is amongst the speakers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW-tJflFoE4 joining us. This is a
challenging endeavor for W3C, i know we made attempts towards establishing
the 'webizen' program ( https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen ); however the
kindest analysis would simply be that we did not sufficiently explain the
value proposition.


I know a
> non-trivial number of W3C member companies that wish these sorts of
> debates were public. There are big corporations that don't want the
> debates to be public, however.
>
> this is brings about a transparency consideration that is not a problem
for the WG/IG/CG of Payment, Credentials, Verifiable Claims or other
important human infrastructure powering the world economy.  I suggest
consideration be made by the AC or whichever group it is; that disclosure
rules be considered for review / update, as to bring to effect the required
modernisation required as W3C takes on these new challenges (which are
significantly different in nature to prior art, such as CSS, HTML, et.al.).

If someone wants to close the doors - and the decision made is that this is
the appropriate means of undertaking work, often good reasons exist for
this level of privacy; yet, in respect for citizens around the world who
equally, by way of various forms of 'rule of law' seek such context to
apply to them also, through, in-part, the utility and operation of the
mission statement of W3C - it's important we support the confidence
requirements (alongside the value-proposition discovery process) for
stakeholders, as to get the best possible outcome IMHO.


> That said, W3C membership is roughly $2K for small organizations... so
> you would think that would be in the budget of many organizations that
> represent the best interest of the public... but they don't engage. Most
> don't because they don't have the bandwidth.
>

Great Point.  I believe new business model opportunities may develop where
appropriate 'technical writing' styled consultancy service-operators may
provide services to stakeholders as a means to more broadly engage the
marketplace to garnish the needs and operational support required to
facilitate W3C works to better effect.

Currently, we have far too few participants IMHO - in an array of complex
and complimentary works in multiple groups, and it seems the engagement
barriers are more significant than can simply be resolved.  the Role of W3C
needs to develop, and indeed is doing so; however, we've got alot to
improve upon somehow, if this issue is considered (higher-up the chain) in
relation to internal and external influences that are moving so very
rapidly.


>
> The problem with individual engagement is that it doesn't scale...


I strongly disagree.


> if we
> get 1,000 formal objections from individuals, and there is a company
> that is capable of deploying the technology to millions, whose opinion
> should be weighed more heavily?


Has this ever occurred?

organisational structures are surely needed, having thousands of people on
a teleconf simply doesn't work. that's why parliaments were invented to
support representative bodies. Therein is some overly simplified and basic
example of a solution to what appears to be a known-problem.  The simple
fact is, unless the choice is made to attend to this sort of known-problem,
a solution will not be defined, refined and engineered due to the choice
not to attend to the issue (whether it be in the short/long
short-sighted/commercial interests of Web 2.0 rulers, or otherwise).

Members are amongst those working on solutions to help with digital
government.  Is it their intention to vote on behalf of the people?
Whatever values illustrated by them should have ripple effects on how
they're considered in the market-place for the application of works
produced in these public forum defined to support the free and open web,
that allows most of the members to build a business and thereafter become a
part of its development via the W3C.

Tricky issues, again - not something for this group specifically; however
noting that these policies influence the outcomes of this group - is likely
a fair and reasonable flag to alert those better positioned to consider.



> In reality, the decisions are far more
> complicated and nuanced than this... and there is good debate happening
> on the W3C member-only mailing list.
>
>
Great.  If we're not invited, perhaps tell those who are able to get
involved on the lists they're involved with - that they're contributions
are important.  telling those such as me, who work tirelessly within such
very modest economic circumstances on works that seem to provide benefit to
'members', at my cost, that it's important i contribute to a conversation i
cannot see.

well, i revert back to my former considerations towards the top of this
email.


> In any case, the situation is far more complicated and nuanced than
> "debate must only be important for members". The bar is quite low for
> public organizations to engage in the debate... yet, many are not doing
> so for a variety of good (and not so good) reasons.
>

People who work on these standards freely towards the development and
delivery of free and open standards, by way of their choice to do so; are
not earning money whilst building things that are later commercially
exploited by 'members'.

Values are expressed one way or another.   If those values are built into
'verifiable claims' infrastructure, then well.  not my problem.  I didn't
get paid whilst doing this work, the employees of 'the members' did.
Perhaps they should have their names assigned to their works for future
reference.  Perhaps that should be a use-case for Verifiable Claims, and i
know - that i've been acknowledged for contributions in past as a
participant, i think the lists are also very important, and well.

Fingers crossed you end-up with the outcome we all need from this private
discussion.  From memory it was the works in the CG that brought about the
situation where members got involved. The reality here, is some people have
put their own time and money into efforts from CG's that have built an
opportunity to a point where 'members' then feel special by locking them
out of the discussion.  I guess that's part of what represents successful
W3C Works :)

Best Wishes (and Manu / others - incredible work over the years.
Incredible minds, great hearts, i hope it works out in a way that gives us
pride, dignity and fulfilment)

Tim.

>
> -- 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 Thursday, 30 March 2017 07:28:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:35 UTC