Re: Credentials CG charter vote result

and FWIW - Verifiable News?  i mean...  really?

don't get me wrong.  it's an area i've been working on for some time
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OPghC4ra6QLhaHhW8QvPJRMKGEXT7KaZtG_7s5-UQrw/edit#
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQQLPzTjZ8JuI1ZPy-xx5KOFffroV9qEJGx7LllD57i3aEp-CpcH9s1tblgAwT2hU2H5uLtYKGnT7s5/pub>
-
indeed you'll even see the section i put in there "Linked-Data, Ontologies
and Verifiable Claims"
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OPghC4ra6QLhaHhW8QvPJRMKGEXT7KaZtG_7s5-UQrw/edit#heading=h.19e53f97toth>


anyhow.  I just...  dunno.  Will get back to you.  Diversity is important...

Tim.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 12:05 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'll go through and do a proper review and respond more effectively;
> noting,
>
> 1. The call schedule is currently for the early hours of my morning.  I
> believe there were studies (can't find the link) that showed it doesn't
> matter where people are in the world, scheduling global activities for
> participation at 2am in the morning generally doesn't work for people.   I
> guess, that's why the time of the call is not at that hour for you.   I
> believe there were two issues about 2am calls, a. attendance and b. people
> are grumpy / not at their best ;)
>
> I've been trying to do more advocacy and related work here locally; and as
> such, had to make choices.  (believing also, the work was in trusted hands
> ;) ).
>
> 2. The older materials weren't archived or available via some form of
> version control; it was just all updated.   So, here am i looking for the
> older references and the URIs, far from cool, said a very different story.
>
> 3. Someone else asked about commenting on the RWOT Spec and the suggestion
> was that it would be better if only those who attended the RWoT event
> comment.  :(
>
> 4. I then did a review, to see whether my other core assumptions about the
> work on VCs (ie: verifiable claim documents) was proceeding as expected;
> and saw a bunch of stuff that well..
>
> all very unexpected.
>
> 'identity' is too often over simplified and certainly also the subject of
> actors seeking to usurp for commercial gains. to do otherwise is so very,
> very complicated.  interestingly these issues do not appear to negatively
> effect the 'identity' of legal persons ("persona ficta") anywhere near the
> prevalence of problems for natural persons.
>
> 5. HTTP-SIGNATURES in relation to RDF documents was / is a beautifully
> simple solution to a variety of problems. It provided something a WACd
> WebID otherwise could not do.  Whilst there are still an array of issues
> about how to ensure the integrity of that document (and its secured
> references), the previous charter explicitly stated "identity credentials"
> and "http signatures"; both are lost in the new version.
>
> I also see the works in OASIS (where some of it started from memory) and
> some other dynamics which whilst i'm fully supportive of people doing good
> things however they seek to;  felt it wasn't necessarily where i was going
> - and the things i most cared about, seemed..
>
> well.  as a consequence of my flagging concerns, some changes have already
> happened.  so i guess, some of my points must to some-degree have been
> taken into consideration.
>
> i'll have another, better look into it.   I've been busy on related works
> with some assumptions in-place, that i'll check are are ok.
>
> As noted; its my view that we need to ensure diversity, which is a very
> important attribute of identity, depending on the definition used.
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 00:02 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/19/2017 05:23 PM, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote:
>> > * <https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter-20140808/>
>> >
>> > As for the state of the previous work items, they seem to map to
>> > more refined work items in progress now (e.g. DIDs) but I'm not
>> > familiar with the history, so I'll let someone else weigh in.
>>
>> I think the general take away is that the group discussed our new
>> charter for multiple months, debated it on the calls, sent minutes out
>> related to the debate to the mailing list, commented on the charter via
>> Google Docs, discussed it at various RWoT events... net net - lots of
>> discussion and debate went into the current charter before it was
>> accepted per the CG process.
>>
>
> I think you flagged this at WWW2017 also.
>
>
>>
>> The new charter we have now had consensus when it was passed at the time
>> (and I suspect still has broad consensus).
>>
>
> That info should be added to the new charter as it was for the last one.
> (ideally, without unnecessarily deleting history).
>
>
>>
>> -- 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/
>>
>