Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2015-12-15

Thanks to Dave Longley and Nate Otto for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2015-12-15

  1. Introduction of New Participants
  2. Review Deliverables
  3. Review Milestones / Timelines
  4. Review Benefits for Stakeholders
  1. Request that the Web Payments Interest Group approve the 
    Verifiable Claims Task Force with the caveat that we still need 
    to do interviews before finalizing work and problem statement.
  2. Adopt the Deliverables in the VCTF wiki as they stand today.
  3. Adopt the Milestones / Timeline as it stands today in the 
  4. Adopt the benefits as they stand now in the wiki with the 
    understanding that we may come back and revise the list as we 
    learn more over the next couple of months.
  Manu Sporny
  Dave Longley and Nate Otto
  Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, David Ezell, Eric Korb, Greg Kidd, 
  Brian Sletten, Daniel C. Burnett, Carla Casili, Stuart Sutton, 
  Gregg Kellogg, Pat Adler, Nate Otto, Matt Collier, Shane 
  McCarron, Erik Anderson, David I. Lehn

Dave Longley is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  We're going to continue going through the proposal; 
  hopefully the last week that we revise it and get buy in. Once we 
  get buy in we're going to invite all the people we wanted to 
  interview. We'll invite in parallel and try to get through 
  interviews as quickly as we can. As soon as we can get through 
  those, we'll cram as much into January as we can.
Manu Sporny:  The order of operations this week seems to be: 
  refine proposal, wrap up today, contact all the people that have 
  said they are concerned about the work we're trying to do. Get 
  input before officially starting task force work. Ratify task 
  force, hopefully WPIG will approve the work seeing broad buy in. 
  Then we'll start constructing all the documents in our work plan. 
  Our work plan is the last agenda item for today. We probably 
  won't get to it today based on speed we're going.
Manu Sporny:  Other administrivia: we do want some of the new 
  participants on this call to introduce themselves, but do so in 
  IRC: type name, org you're associated with, and why you are 
  interested in this work.
Manu Sporny:  Let me know what you guys think of this, but this 
  will be the last call of the year and we'll take a break until 
  January 12th. Trying to respect the holidays and time off and 
  giving people down time. People have been working hard want to 
  give down time. Proposal is that this week is the last for calls 
  and next call with be January. That doesn't mean no work will 
  happen, just no calls until January 12th.
David Ezell:  I wanted to sort of understand ... we have an IG 
  meeting on Monday, do you feel you'd be ready for us to vote on 
  the task force on Monday?
Manu Sporny:  I think Ian said that he wanted us to get buy in 
  from the folks that have been cranky about this work. That the 
  task force would not be started until we've at least had 
  discussions with them. The hope would be that they'd be 
  interested in the work.
Manu Sporny:  It doesn't affect the output of the group. We're 
  not operating officially right now but we don't need to be to 
  collect the data we need. That's just my opinion and a request 
  from W3C staff. If the group feels that we should do something 
  else and we should ask the IG to ratify the group next week that 
  would be one possibility.
David Ezell:  Personally I'd like to see this become a task 
  force. It's just a task force, not a big deal. Do you have time 
Manu Sporny:  Here's the other thing that we should try and do 
  ... we should try and get this task force in front of the IG at 
  SF at the F2F.
Manu Sporny:  It would be a great way to co-mingle the people 
  involved in the work. The WPIG is meeting Monday, the WPWG on 
  Tuesday, potentially this group could meet before the IG met 
  (Sunday) but that's not really realistic. Maybe we could do it 
  Thursday but there's a concern that that's too much F2F for all 
  the people. The F2F is at the end of February and we need to 
  figure out if this group is going to have F2F that early and it 
  is a bit premature for this group, we'd really have to get 
  materials together, but it would be missed opportunity I think. 
  We should really get a lot of work done in Jan, and early-mid 
  Feb. Hope would be to go co-locate at Google's facilities as 
Dave Longley:  On the queue to say official task force could be 
  doing interviews - Task Force is supposed to be neutral, I don't 
  see why you can't ask if Task Force be ratified before 
  interviews. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
David Ezell:  I wanted to say sort of what Dave is saying. I kind 
  of understand what Ian is trying to get. I don't want to take up 
  the time with these kinds of logistics. There is an IG meeting on 
  Monday, the next IG meeting won't be until Jan 11th. If we don't 
  approve the task force on the 21st, then we'll need to do it on 
  the 11th. If it seems like it's in the plan ... would you do the 
  interviews before Jan 11th?
Manu Sporny:  I think we'd wait to get the whole thing approved 
  until Feb if we did that.
David Ezell:  I don't see the problem space as clearly as he 
  does; it seems like you form the task force and you do the work. 
  I'll try and get you a clear answer and circle back around 
  Monday. I don't think waiting until F2F to approve the task force 
  doesn't seem like the right thing.
Eric Korb:  What is the advantange of going to Task Force vs 
  Working Group? Or, is that not possible? [scribe assist by Eric 
Manu Sporny:  I agree, the only reason we're entertaining that is 
  due to a request from W3C staff but maybe that was just a soft 
  ask instead of a hard ask.
Manu Sporny:  Eric, there is no option to going to WG, we have to 
  build the case for WG which is what the Task Force does.
Manu Sporny:  Task Force builds case for if W3C can add value and 
  how to structure the work, etc.
Manu Sporny:  Task Force is next step.
Eric Korb: Manu, thx
Manu Sporny:  Having said all that, do folks feel like we have 
  enough buy in and consensus on the proposal to just vote on it?
Manu Sporny:  So the task force is formed? That doesn't mean 
  things are set in stone and we still have interviews, etc. and we 
  can be open to go in another direction.
Manu Sporny:  One approach is to get the Task Force approved and 
  then say that we still need to ensure the problem statement is 
  accurate and we have work to do, etc.
Dave Longley: +1 To trying approval at next meeting.
David Ezell: I'm comfortable with "we've done all work except the 
  interviews."  Present to the IG, and see what happens.
Greg Kidd: +1
Brian Sletten: +1 Approval
Daniel C. Burnett: Don't see why not.  +1 to trying for approval 
  at next meeting
Carla Casili: +1 For next week
David Ezell: +1
Stuart Sutton: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Eric Korb: +1

RESOLUTION: Request that the Web Payments Interest Group approve 
  the Verifiable Claims Task Force with the caveat that we still 
  need to do interviews before finalizing work and problem 

Topic: Introduction of New Participants

Manu Sporny:  If you haven't been on the call before, please type 
  out, in IRC, your name, organization you're associated with, and 
  why this work is important to you.

Topic: Review Deliverables

Manu Sporny:
Manu Sporny:
Manu Sporny:  We're continuing through the proposal. As we 
  demonstrate that there's consensus in this group, the sections 
  along with the modifications we make as we approve them, they are 
  being moved over to the VTCF webpage. Looking there now, you 
  should see the stuff we have consensus for.
Manu Sporny:
Manu Sporny:  To summarize, we're going to do recorded interviews 
  to bring people in and get opinions. We're going to have a set of 
  questions to give them and have them look at the problem 
  statement, most likely spending an hour on them to get a thorough 
  analysis on what we're doing and make sure we're not missing 
Manu Sporny:  Many of them are key to identity and credentialing 
  initiatives in the past, experts, we want their input.
Pat Adler: Hi All, my name is Pat Adler, I work for the Federal 
  Reserve Bank of Chicago and am a member of the Web Payments IG.  
  I'm interested in this work as I do quite a bit of work with both 
  payments and identity which I believe would both benefit from an 
  open standard on verifiable claims.
Nate Otto is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  We need to identify benefits for financial, 
  education, and healthcare industries.
Manu Sporny:  We are going to create a use cases documents. We 
  may create a vision document.
Manu Sporny:  That's what this task force is responsible for 
  doing. Once we create that material, the web payments IG will 
  create a charter and a roadmap. They may do that with help from 
  this task force. It will be socialized among the W3C member 
Brian Sletten: Does "widely socialized" mean something specific 
  or is it just best effort?
Manu Sporny:  I misspoke. It is mandatory that we create them.
Manu Sporny:  Folks coming into this group will not be able to do 
  a thorough comparison themselves. We need to do this work for 
  them. This is the first question asked by people coming into the 
Manu Sporny:  "Widely socialized" terminology means we try very 
  hard to get input from advisory committee, chairs of different 
  working groups, w3c membership in general.
Manu Sporny:  We're going to ask "what do you think of this? Do 
  you think it's a good charter? Do you have any 
Brian Sletten: Yes
Manu Sporny:  One of the deliverables is a roadmap document with 
  phases. Hopefully that addresses your concerns.

PROPOSAL:  Adopt the Deliverables in the VCTF wiki as they stand 

Brian Sletten: +1 To adopting the deliverables
Stuart Sutton: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Nate Otto: +1
Matt Collier: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Daniel C. Burnett: +1
Shane McCarron: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Carla Casili: +1
Erik Anderson: +1
David Ezell: +1
Manu Sporny: Richard: +1

RESOLUTION: Adopt the Deliverables in the VCTF wiki as they stand 

Dave Longley:  When would a capabilities document be created?
Manu Sporny:  Good question; I think it would be good to have a 
  capabilities document. The identity/credentialing capabilities is 
  already part of the Web Payments IG capabilities document.
Manu Sporny:  .. That could effectively become the VCTF 
  capabilities document
Dave Longley: "Identify benefits to financial, education, and 
  healthcare industries" does this translate into a capabilities 
David Ezell:  Agree with manu. Our desire is to have a single 
  capabilities document across the entire activity, so that anybody 
  who wants to look at it can see which direction the various 
  working groups are running.
Pat Adler:  One of the goals for the existing format is to be 
  able to have a section on credentials. The goal is to have that 
  capabilities document rounded out before we get to the February 
  face-to-face meeting.
Pat Adler:  It's a little hard to do to get the big picture of 
  everything that's going on, now that there are multiple tracks 
  running in parallel. For anyone who can help, contact padler to 
  get the link to the document and get going.

Topic: Review Milestones / Timelines

Manu Sporny:
Manu Sporny:  Erik is bringing up a problem with socializing 
  charters. Folks who react very negatively are giving higher 
  priority than the 25+ people who don't have a problem with the 
  charter. This is just the way it is. W3C has been searching for a 
  solution for this human engineering problem for 2 decades now...
Manu Sporny:  We've already had to change this because it's taken 
  longer to spin up this task force than we'd hoped. Nov: Discuss 
  proposal, Dec: socialize proposal. After today's call if proposal 
  is approved, we'll start setting up interviews. January, the task 
  force will hopefully be established
Manu Sporny:  In February, we'll continue to publish all of our 
  findings as we do interviews. Just as we publish minutes for this 
  call, we will publish discussions with Brad Hill, Jeff Hodges, 
  etc. as it happens.
Manu Sporny:  Then there is a question whether we should 
  co-locate in San Francisco (Google) with the Web Payments IG 
Manu Sporny:  March: revising documents from feedback from 
Manu Sporny:  April: Finalize charter, so W3C advisory committee 
  isn't surprised when charter comes across their desks for a vote.
Manu Sporny:  June: submit charter for W3C Approval
Manu Sporny:  The front part of the timeline is very aggressive. 
  The tail end is a bit more leisurely. Often these things take 
  longer than we intend.

PROPOSAL:  Adopt the Milestones / Timeline as it stands today in 
  the wiki.

Shane McCarron: Have you built in any slack?  Is that what you 
  mean when you say it is loose at the end?
Shane McCarron: Thanks!
Nate Otto:  This timeline puts a lot of the hard work on this at 
  the same time as I've got a lot of other hard work scheduled on 
  different fronts, so it'll be a hard-working January!
David Ezell:  It might be really helpful if you put some of those 
  milestones on the timeline. Like the face-to-face, and the AC 
  meeting (maybe in April)
David Ezell:  That is a really important thing to be visible at. 
  Should probably just have a line in the timeline for each.
Manu Sporny:  How about 22 Feb Face to Face is a hard date in the 
Dave Longley:
Dave Longley:  The link I put in says 20th & 22nd of March in 
  Cambridge, MA
David Ezell:  It's better to give people a last chance to raise 
  an objection at an AC meeting than to give them a microphone to 
  go crazy.
Manu Sporny:  What that means for this group, is we're going to 
  have to parallelize almost everything. There will be chaos and 
  hand-wringing, but I have seen it turn out well in the past.
Manu Sporny:  Ok, I have added two hard dates in there. February 
  Face to Face, and March meeting in Cambridge
Manu Sporny:  Any other questions/concerns before we approve the 

PROPOSAL:  Adopt the Milestones / Timeline as it stands today in 
  the wiki.

Brian Sletten: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
David Ezell: +1
Nate Otto: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Matt Collier: +1
Stuart Sutton: +1
Shane McCarron: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Carla Casili: +1
Manu Sporny: Richard: +1
Eric Korb: +1
Daniel C. Burnett: +1
Erik Anderson: +1

RESOLUTION: Adopt the Milestones / Timeline as it stands today in 
  the wiki.

Topic: Review Benefits for Stakeholders

Manu Sporny:  Next up, a review of benefits for stakeholders. 
  This is requested by W3C management. I don't see it as critical 
  that we get it absolutely right.
Manu Sporny:
Manu Sporny:  It is confusing to folks who don't really 
  understand what the upsides are, if we create the ecosystem we 
  are talking about in the proposal. These are the benefits to 
  stakeholders that we've identified by today. There may be more, 
  but this is what we have right now. We expect to identify more 
  things and add to this list.
Manu Sporny:  We're not trying to get a perfect list here, just 
  good enough to circulate to other people.
David Ezell:  No problem with this list. Go through it. 
  Sight-unseen, a really long list, even if things are important is 
  not as sharp as a strong four-benefit list.
Manu Sporny:  I'd argue it would take a long time to craft the 
  right sentence from these bullet points, so we could do it later.
David Ezell:  Probably something that we should all agree that 
  you (manu) should do.
Carla Casili: Is there a desired number per main bullet point?
Manu Sporny:  Something we should do together. But maybe someone 
  should take a shot at it that we can discuss
Manu Sporny:  I don't think so -- there are more benefits for 
  some stakeholder groups than others.
Shane McCarron: We should try to ensure this ties back to the 
  problem statement
Manu Sporny:  As you can see for those lists, everyday people 
  have a lot of benefits. This is really where the w3c excels; the 
  everyday person is their customer.
Manu Sporny:  Agree that this should tie back to the problem 
Carla Casili: Yes
Manu Sporny:  One of the stakeholder groups we have added 
  recently is "People": "employees, professionals, property owners, 
  legal guardians..."
Manu Sporny:  Listing benefits from ... 
  : no provider lock-in, portable usage, privacy-enhanced sharing 
  mechanisms (It's up to the person to share), give people control 
  of confidential informations, elimination of repetitive input on 
  websites (shipping address, email address), reduction in the need 
  to input PII (SSN, Credit Card number, or other secret 
Manu Sporny:  Better usability for sites that need to collect 
  data: Part of this is regulatory compliance, part of this is 
  better accessibility for disabled users.
Manu Sporny:  Does anyone see a benefit that we missed?
Dave Longley:  Should something about lowering the cost of 
  managing, acquiring, maintaining these things, be something to 
  touch upon?
Brian Sletten:  I will think about language to propose.
Manu Sporny:  For Erik's suggestion: try to wordsmith it
Shane McCarron: Cost-reductions through credential persistence 
  and verifiability
Shane McCarron: Yes
Manu Sporny:  Shane's comment is in relation to what bsletten
Shane McCarron:  Maybe "machine verifiability" to highlight 
Shane McCarron: (Nice)
Manu Sporny:  On to Issuers: DMV, government, corporations, 
  education providers...
Manu Sporny:  Level competitive playing field (not just 
  super-providers). Proposal is that there could be easy entry for 
  new competitors in spaces where verifiable claims are necessary
Manu Sporny:  Richer set of verifiable claims to choose from -- 
  overall, more powerful than if different sections of the market 
  were siloed between different issuers.
Manu Sporny:  Avoid vendor-specific solutions and lock-in
Manu Sporny:  Any other benefits to issuers?
Manu Sporny:  Moving on to consumers
Manu Sporny:  Consumers are organizations who accept verifiable 
  claims to provide some good, privilege, or service to holders of 
  verifiable claims.
Dave Longley: Issuers: potential for reduced infrastructure needs
Carla Casili: Are we going to be revisiting these at a later 
Carla Casili: Great, thx.
Manu Sporny:  How about "potential for reduced infrastructure 
Dave Longley:  User-centric "architecture" instead of "focus".
Manu Sporny:  Moving onto consumers. 4min left.
Dave Longley: "Ability and choice"
Eric Korb: Happy to stay on past hr
Dave Longley:  Greater "diverisity and trust"
Dave Longley:  Maybe try "Increased ability to trust the 
  authenticity of claims made by a diversifying set of issuers"
Dave Longley: "Increased diversity and choice when establishing 
  trust in authenticity of verifiable claims"
Manu Sporny:  Moving on to ID providers... level playing field 
  for services competing to demonstrate that they are the best 
  place for users to store their verifiable claims
Manu Sporny:  Value-added services: because you're storing 
  personally identifiable information with them, you can 
  potentially be offered benefits.
Manu Sporny:  Finalizing for this call, the list of benefits

PROPOSAL:  Adopt the benefits as they stand now in the wiki with 
  the understanding that we may come back and revise the list as we 
  learn more over the next couple of months.

Brian Sletten: +1
Dave Longley: +1 (Should add that infrastructure needs are also 
  reduced for consumers and IdPs)
Daniel C. Burnett: +1
Eric Korb: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Matt Collier: +1
Shane McCarron: +1
Eric Korb: +Q
Manu Sporny: +1
Erik Anderson: +1
David Ezell: +1
Carla Casili: +1 To this version with future revisions as needed
Stuart Sutton: +1
David I. Lehn: +1
Brian Sletten: Very minor nit. I'm generally sympathetic to 
  prescriptivism, but I find the use of 'fora' to be off-putting. I 
  realize it is correct, but 'forums' are also recognized as legit. 
  I think we should use the more common term.
Manu Sporny:  The problem statement makes it clear we're making a 
  user-centric approach here. What we're saying is that's not a 
  good scalable way of addressing that problem.
Eric Korb: K, thx
Carla Casili: Sorry, hard stop
Carla Casili: Thanks.
Shane McCarron: Me needs to run - good meeting!
Eric Korb:  I saw some concern in a previous meeting that there 
  wasn't concensus around that focus. manu: There was wide support 
  -- don't think that's a bad thing, but we can talk more offline.

RESOLUTION: Adopt the benefits as they stand now in the wiki with 
  the understanding that we may come back and revise the list as we 
  learn more over the next couple of months.

Manu Sporny:  Next call will be January 12. Hope you all have a 
  decent bit of downtime.
Eric Korb: Happy Hollidays!

Received on Thursday, 17 December 2015 20:22:39 UTC