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

Re: DID Spec Closure meetings

From: Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 19:58:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAB=TY84_09H4wOVXuonUT0ybYUZ2_XgtT4Ur3JZ5f70Sm-e61g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: public-credentials@w3.org
Building on Manu's point about proposals, I think we'd be most productive
dividing the changes into themes/categories, each of which would be
elaborated on in a proposal. Some I identified:

   - service descriptions
   - serialization formats
   - key descriptions
   - tightening up timestamp semantics

Several of these require advance work: e.g. we need to identify use cases
for service descriptions, we need input about IPID for serialization
formats, ... so I think some advance preparation would make these meetings
(and our communication around them) more effective.

I would gladly lead (or co-lead) the key descriptions part.

Thanks,
Kim

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:57 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 11/15/2017 11:41 AM, Susan Bradford wrote:
> > The agenda for each call will be set by the editors and will be
> > limited to discussion of the open issues in the order of priority the
> > editors have determined based on feedback from contributors.
>
> A few of us in the US won't be able to make it due to the Thanksgiving
> holiday. If we could provide an Agenda to the group, we can get
> preliminary feedback on issues for those that won't be able to attend.
>
> To put it another way, if we could get PROPOSALS for changes to the spec
> in advance of the meeting next week, Drummond could get an idea of where
> there is consensus and where there isn't. One of the issues w/ having
> meetings around holidays is that if people don't show up, and you make a
> decision, the decision is almost immediately undone when you find out
> that the people that weren't there disagreed with the decision.
>
> The other way to do that is to make decisions based on consensus of
> attendees preliminary pending a 7-14 day waiting period to see if there
> are objections to the decisions. All decisions would be published to the
> mailing list for broader feedback and when it's clear that there are no
> objections (after 7-14 days) do you ratify the decision.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The State of W3C Web Payments in 2017
> http://manu.sporny.org/2017/w3c-web-payments/
>
> --
Kim Hamilton Duffy
CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
400 Main Street Building E19-732, Cambridge, MA 02139

kim@learningmachine.com | kimhd@mit.edu
425-652-0150 | LearningMachine.com
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2017 19:58:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:42 UTC