W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2018

RE: DIF/W3C member attribution issue

From: Daniel Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:52:31 +0000
To: Moses Ma <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com>
CC: Public-Credentials <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SN2PR00MB019089EF4219F553E706411F81F90@SN2PR00MB0190.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
How about we carve out some time around/during the next IIW to discuss our shared work and ways we can collaborate? (assuming folks are attending IIW)

- Daniel

From: Moses Ma [mailto:moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:21 AM
To: Daniel Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com>
Cc: Public-Credentials <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: DIF/W3C member attribution issue

Hi Daniel,

I apologize for the tone of my note, and would love to interview you to get more of “the whole story”... which absolutely includes your perspective. In fact, can we get on the phone sometime soon, so I can apologize properly and invite you to speak on a panel I’m hosting at Blockchain West?

Also, in order to make sure that a flame war doesn’t inadvertently happen, I’d like to recommend that we host a “big tent bridge building” conference call to air these specific issues of attribution? I think we can consensually build a timeline that everyone would agree on, that describes the evolution of the decentralized identity movement.

Moses


-
Moses Ma | NextGEN Ventures Inc
moses@ngenven.com<mailto:moses@ngenven.com> | moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com<mailto:moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com>
v +1.415.952.7888<tel:+1.415.952.7888> | m +1.415.568.1068<tel:+1.415.568.1068> | skype mosesma




On Jan 31, 2018 at 5:21 AM, <Daniel Buchner<mailto:daniel.buchner@microsoft.com>> wrote:
Hey folks,

I just wanted to address a thread about credit for work and PR activities I saw on the ML.

Just so you all know:


  *   We haven’t coordinated a single PR event other than our initial org launch, people retweeting our DIF Medium posts, and some rando Twitter messages.
  *   We don’t have a “PR machine” (in fact, we barely even talk about public displays/messaging)
  *   We’ve never, to my knowledge, tried/intended to take credit for Decentralized Identifiers, beyond the fact some folks in the group (myself included) attend calls and contribute to the effort
  *   If a member of DIF doesn’t attribute something to your liking, I can 100% guarantee it is not some sort of DIF, MSFT, or IBM conspiracy (if you knew me, you would know I am being honest when I tell you this)
  *   In our only ‘official’ content I am aware of that mentions DIDs, it just says we’re contributing reference implementations, or that we’re big fans and using the spec in our other technical work:

     *   http://identity.foundation/working-groups<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fidentity.foundation%2Fworking-groups&data=02%7C01%7Cdaniel.buchner%40microsoft.com%7C0b00a15efe0342db608d08d568cf4f33%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636530161965459373&sdata=KMKlIG1yQ4f1xfXY35XyCd7R2aPsYFyzhUUD3a1htBg%3D&reserved=0> - our site says “W3C DID Spec” and links to (what I hope) is the best/latest draft on the W3C CCG repo
     *   https://slides.com/danielbuchner/decentralized-identity-foundation<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fslides.com%2Fdanielbuchner%2Fdecentralized-identity-foundation&data=02%7C01%7Cdaniel.buchner%40microsoft.com%7C0b00a15efe0342db608d08d568cf4f33%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636530161965459373&sdata=HXTuZE70q04j2qkVvRJ1rjX3p5I%2BD%2BeEJt0Xzgaq9mY%3D&reserved=0> - our slides list DIDs as a key technology, along with things like Chainpoint, which we’ve also never claimed to own or be the originators of
     *   https://medium.com/decentralized-identity/the-rising-tide-of-decentralized-identity-2e163e4ec663<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fdecentralized-identity%2Fthe-rising-tide-of-decentralized-identity-2e163e4ec663&data=02%7C01%7Cdaniel.buchner%40microsoft.com%7C0b00a15efe0342db608d08d568cf4f33%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636530161965459373&sdata=I7qCt0LxYW5CaM4IzzeQ3asOaahTzfIAVurjTAxYoQo%3D&reserved=0> - again, our initial blog post just lists it as a key technology we’re using for reference implementations (the Universal DID Resolver, for example)

Please come to me or others to address issues you may have. We value your work greatly – it’s absolutely essential to the other things we want to build – so don’t assume the worst.

- Daniel

On a personal note: I spent half a decade at Mozilla, and even longer participating in W3C groups, so it hurts to read about how people think I and MSFT are conspiring to harm standards efforts I am personally pushing hard for in our company and externally. I have prided myself as always being above board, honest, and probably one of the most anti-corp/crony people you’ll ever meet, so just consider that next time you talk about MSFT’s role in all this.

-------------------------------------------------------



Resent-From: public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org%3cmailto:public-credentials@w3.org>>

From: Moses Ma <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com<mailto:moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com<mailto:moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com%3cmailto:moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com>>>

Date: January 30, 2018 at 14:35:21 PST

To: public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org%3cmailto:public-credentials@w3.org>>

Cc: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net<mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net<mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net%3cmailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>>>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com%3cmailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>>

Subject: Re: [MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2018-01-30 12pm ET



Hi everyone,



One of the reasons I'm writing about DID in depth is to tell the "whole story", before the PR machines of DIF members drowns us out. I created a form/survey that you could fill out with your perspectives and quotes about DID and VCs. I included a couple of questions about the history of decentralized ID, where we can sort out who did what first.



What I'm trying to do is write the history book for DID first.



Please participate here: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveygizmo.com%2Fs3%2F4162124%2FDID-chapter-contribution&data=02%7C01%7CDaniel.Buchner%40microsoft.com%7C695f0317958b44990b7d08d5685ecaaf%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636529678700953492&sdata=87UkYFGLx%2B2nJaowD8NksIYln2DG5IF7IaJhoikuzrM%3D&reserved=0



Moses







On 1/30/18 12:19 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:

On 2018-01-30 10:39 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com%3cmailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:



Manu Sporny:  May want to cover uport blog post Manu Sporny:  If you're writing about the work of the community

   ... please share credit for the groups that have been

   incubating these ideas

   ... IIW, RWOT, W3C, DIF



At the above point, in the audio for the group, as I hear it Manu also says:



"...it's mostly like, where is large amounts of the work happening...--I think DIF would probably also like to be mentioned, although it's not clear to me, you now, exactly what work's going on there, so maybe someone from DIF can let us know."



I managed to repress my internal red flag about the Uport Blog failing to attribute the CCG DID work in the other thread, but apparently Manu feels something the same, so I'm going to come right out with it:



1. The Uport Blog suggested that the DID work existed under the auspices of the DIF.



2. After Manu's complaint and request, the corrected Uport Blog still lists the DID work under DIF heading, though with a mention in another section that the CCG group exists and is also working on DID along with the DIF.



https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fuport%2Fdifferent-approaches-to-ethereum-identity-standards-a09488347c87&data=02%7C01%7CDaniel.Buchner%40microsoft.com%7C695f0317958b44990b7d08d5685ecaaf%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636529678700963506&sdata=K%2BU2BtHTeRBm%2BBEBRO1lBr4bsge3Zx2%2BRruvFAetqME%3D&reserved=0



3. DIF appears to be primarily a large group of corporations, including Microsoft and IBM.



https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fidentity.foundation%2F&data=02%7C01%7CDaniel.Buchner%40microsoft.com%7C695f0317958b44990b7d08d5685ecaaf%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636529678700963506&sdata=ztxgYsPRmDFpIrCOZAg7lw9PKdWfNw67GfkngO0bzsI%3D&reserved=0



Red Flag: Is it possible -- and there is history for this, I believe, in other situations, particularly with Microsoft -- that one or more of the companies in the DIF will attempt to use DID for a silo, to preempt the ability of the DID platform to spread into general use? Or even purposely interfere with the DID coding and use, in a way that fouls it up or slows it down, so that it won't compete with something else that they've got going elsewhere?



This sounds like a conspiracy theory, granted. But OTOH these things actually have happened in the past, and the Uport blog seems like a pretty large hint that it's at least possible here.



So: are there other things in this situation that prevent the possibility of this happening?





Steven



Received on Friday, 2 February 2018 15:53:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:44 UTC