Re: Credentials CG charter vote result

Kim. the page referring to the original charter is currently not
discoverable on the CG site.  I find that rather disrespectful.  before
this conversation it had entirely gone as you simply updated the page with
the old date-stamps, etc.  i found that disrespectful too.

I have found raising the issues an unfortunate issue in itself; and the way
this is now left, is that these historical notes - are still not on the CG
page.

and now i'm defending myself further for having opened my mouth, as though
- it's simply not positive.

The work that i spent countless hours committed to contributing towards the
development of these works; that led, overtime - to something that you're
so proud to be involved with; is now, from a technical point of view,
seemingly in another group. Elsewhere.

With regard to fixing the hyperlinks in your document, i recommend you find
someone who will feel good about the commitment of time and energy they
provide to do it.  I feel like i've been version controlled out of the
provenance.  Lets leave it that way for now.

All the best.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:25 Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
wrote:

> Tim, I ask that you drop the sarcasm and disrespect. I've spent a lot of
> effort making this information discoverable and (I believe) have made
> improvements. The community values your positive contributions, so I ask in
> spirit of collaboration that you provide concrete, constructive
> suggestions, submit PRs, or open github issues for any concerns you would
> like the chairs to address.
>
> That's all from me. Best,
> Kim
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 5:11 AM Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Whats your suggestion to make it discoverable?
>>
>> Honestly.  IDK.  I"ll put in my presentations how i have to refer people
>> to either the non-discoverable link and this list traffic; and/or the
>> archive.org versioning to track history.
>>
>> far simpler.  cheers.  i'm sure it'll be blunt enough for others too.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:04 Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > I reverted the page with the original charter to the previous state
>>> and referenced it from the latest:
>>> https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter-20140808/
>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:27 PM Timothy Holborn <
>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kim.  can you point to the old charter?
>>>> https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/page/5/  ?  I still can't
>>>> find it?
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 16:54 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 16:51 Timothy Holborn <
>>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Kim,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apologies if the meta was difficult.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spec needs to support URIs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> oh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given http-signatures[1] is now in a different group[2]. perhaps it
>>>>> doesn't matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> (guess it looks a bit like a backdoor listing, technically - i'm not
>>>>> sure it matters.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]  https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/
>>>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/community/digital-verification/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> more later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim.H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 16:05 Kim Hamilton Duffy <
>>>>>> kim@learningmachine.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Tim,
>>>>>>> Could you be precise about your concerns? I value directness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Kim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:53 PM Timothy Holborn <
>>>>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers.  We've been doing some work in the area, indeed i'm doing
>>>>>>>> some work on it right now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> seeAlso: (not exhaustively)
>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1437
>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1525
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and notably also:
>>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Talks/2001/12-semweb-offices/all.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> therein also; is the underlying assumption of a URI.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 14:40 Adam Sobieski <
>>>>>>>> adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tim,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing those documents. Based upon the first
>>>>>>>>> problem that you indicate in your discussion, pertaining to types of
>>>>>>>>> articles, you might be interested in:
>>>>>>>>> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/verifiable-news/journalistic-schemas.html
>>>>>>>>> and https://schema.org/docs/news.html .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *From:* Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* ‎Friday‎, ‎October‎ ‎20‎, ‎2017 ‎9‎:‎24‎ ‎PM
>>>>>>>>> *To:* Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Kim Hamilton Duffy
>>>>>>>>> <kim@learningmachine.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>> --
> 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
>