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

Re: [MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2017-08-15 12pm ET

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:52:36 -0700
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <53d31e5e-d984-0b9e-6908-42ccb523a0cd@sunshine.net>

On 2017-08-23 6:06 PM, Moses Ma wrote:
> Hi Manu et al,
> I took a crack at a letter of introduction to send to various 
> journalists, and I thought I'd send it to the entire group to solicit 
> feedback. 

+1 on the wording.

I briefly worked as a print journalist, and I think—trying to imagine 
it from that point of view—I would have found this both interesting 
and clear.


For clarity's sake, my understanding is that Manu is in
> charge of the final draft, so you should probably direct any comments 
> to him, with a cc: to me - but I'd recommend not cc:'ing the entire list.
>     The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community
>     that develops open standards to ensure the long-term growth of the
>     Web. I’m chairing a working group that is tasked with the
>     standardization of a data model and syntax for the expression of
>     “verifiable claims”. One of the initiatives that we are working on
>     deals with the massive spread of “fake news”, which has been
>     identified as a major global risk and has been alleged to
>     influence elections and threaten democracies.
>     However, the viral diffusion of digital misinformation is very
>     complex, and even though search and social media platforms are
>     beginning to deploy countermeasures, we believe that standards
>     organizations such as the W3C should address this as a direct use
>     case for both /verifiable claims/, which could potentially address
>     the veracity of web content, as well as emerging standards for
>     /decentralized and self-sovereign identity/, which could
>     potentially address the weaponization of propaganda through bots
>     that actively spread misinformation.
>     As a respected journalist or technologist supporting journalism,
>     we would like to invite you to present your views and thoughts on
>     this issue, and possibly, participate in the development of new
>     web standards that could assist search and social media to deploy
>     more effective countermeasures.
>     If this might be of interest to you, please contact me at your
>     earliest convenience, so we can set up a meeting of the working
>     group with you as a featured guest.
>     With regards,
> I'd be happy to invite both John Markoff 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Markoff> and Paul Ingrassia 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ingrassia> to participate and be 
> interviewed as a guest in an upcoming meeting.
> Be the Shift,
> Moses
> On 8/15/17 11:40 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
>> Thanks to Dave Longley for scribing this week! The minutes
>> for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:
>> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2017-08-15/
>> Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
>> Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2017-08-15
>> Agenda:
>>    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Aug/0039.html
>> Topics:
>>    1. Introductions
>>    2. Fake News and Bots
>>    3. Mission Statement
>>    4. Administrative Items
>> Organizer:
>>    Kim Hamilton Duffy and Christopher Allen
>> Scribe:
>>    Dave Longley
>> Present:
>>    Dave Longley, Evan Sandhaus, Ryan Grant, Claire Rumore, Mike
>>    Lodder, Moses Ma, Manu Sporny, David Chadwick, Lionel Wolberger,
>>    Kim Hamilton Duffy, Adam Migus, Matt Stone, Nathan George, Joe
>>    Andrieu, Adam Sobieski, Adam Lake, Drummond Reed, Dan Burnett,
>>    Chris Webber
>> Audio:
>>    https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2017-08-15/audio.ogg
>> Dave Longley is scribing.
>> Topic: Introductions
>> Evan Sandhaus:  I am the executive director of knowledge and meta
>>    data management at NY times. Over see information we put out.
>>    Involved as a data guy at the time, involved in several different
>>    threads all over the planet having to do with verifying
>>    claims/dealing with fake news. Interested in this community.
>> Ryan Grant: +1
>> Claire Rumore:  I'm Claire R and work along side Moses Ma in the
>>    Bay area. Staff social scientist and guardian of relationships at
>>    FutureLabs Consulting.
>> Topic: Fake News and Bots
>> Mike Lodder: I'm Mike Lodder, I work at Evernym as Senior Crypto
>>    Engineer
>> Moses Ma:  We're going to spend 30 minutes talking about bots and
>>    VCs. Will be talking about a set of rules, you don't have to use
>>    the queue, but please use the chat channel and have some content
>>    in it. I'm going to ask everyone to say something during the
>>    event, bringing out the participation. We will also do
>>    perspective switching, when the energy of the discussion dies
>>    down we'll switch to a different perspective, open systems to
>>    user requirements, etc.
>>    ... Want to keep energy going, I urge all of you to speak up
>>    and be verbose in the comment stream.
>> Moses Ma:  Only other thing I do request, I do request that you
>>    capture what the scribe is saying so there's context.
>> Moses Ma:  We start with what we call the bingo round. Everyone
>>    say what you want to say.
>> Dave Longley:  Capture what the scribe types, speakers should
>>    wait for the scribe to begin capturing so that there is written
>>    context. [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
>> Moses Ma:  Just share your feeling for five minutes. Anyone have
>>    something to say about this subject?
>> Manu Sporny:  What I'd like to see out of the discussion today is
>>    a concrete next step. At a high level I'd like to see if we can
>>    use VC to address fake bots/news problems around the world.
>> Manu Sporny:  We haven't had a lot of journalists in the group,
>>    but we have talked about VCs being helpful to journalists and the
>>    industry but we're not sure exactly how to proceed.
>> Manu Sporny:  I'd love to hear from the journalists that are here
>>    on the call today and what they're thinking on verifiable
>>    statements and how they could potentially use those to combat the
>>    problem.
>> David Chadwick:  I did respond to the post on this issue, I
>>    didn't get replies yet. I don't know if people agree/disagree are
>>    just silent. It's relatively easy solution to solve provided that
>>    we have a trusted issuer that can make statements like "This
>>    person is a UK citizen" or "This is David Chadwick."
>> David Chadwick:  That would solve the problem with bots, but the
>>    problem I see is that that will be quite difficult with the
>>    current state of government technology.
>> David Chadwick:  Maybe banks could be the trusted issuers we're
>>    looking for because banks are now required to know their
>>    customers. But not everyone has a bank account, so there's a
>>    problem there.
>> David Chadwick:  So getting a trusted issuer that everyone would
>>    have is a difficult problem.
>> Lionel Wolberger:  Just worked! [scribe assist by Lionel
>>    Wolberger]
>> Ryan Grant: I'd like to work on my audio, first
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  For this round, dont' worry about the queue,
>>    just pipe up.
>> Moses Ma:  Are there any journalists that would like to talk
>>    about what you're working on?
>> Evan Sandhaus:  I just wanted to say that, first of all,
>>    technologist not a journalist. The times right now is involved in
>>    learning about various efforts in the credibility space. We
>>    haven't to my knowledge made any super firm decisions on which
>>    way to go.
>> Evan Sandhaus:  Personally, the idea of making specific claims
>>    about the credibility of the individual statements is something
>>    we do in interactive pieces, here's what such and such say and so
>>    on. I'm thinking that a piece like that may be a place to start
>>    exploring the kind of work that's being proposed.
>> Evan Sandhaus:  I'm thinking of a couple of folks that would be
>>    interested in these efforts and will direct their attention after
>>    this discussion.
>> Manu Sporny: Yes! Bring in retired editors!
>> Moses Ma:  I have a friend, Paul Ingracia and has won a pulitzer
>>    and I don't know if you know him... would like to bring in
>>    retired editors.
>> Evan Sandhaus:  I don't know how that would hurt! Any folks you
>>    can bring in that think this is a good idea would help.
>> Moses Ma:  Terrific.
>> Adam Migus: Question: is this about credentialing journalists or
>>    are we including editors, sources, etc.?
>> Moses Ma:  We can switch the context because we're already
>>    running down on time. How would this work ... just open the
>>    floor, maybe Manu and Drummond could speak up. Anyone is
>>    included. Talk first about credentialing journalists or VCs in an
>>    article. Then we'll switch to people vs. bots.
>> Adam Migus: In the case of sources, I think the security and
>>    privacy considerations are quite different.
>> Manu Sporny:  This is a response to Adam Migus in IRC. First of
>>    all Evan, thanks for giving us that perspective and helping to
>>    connect folks to the work here. There are a number of loose ideas
>>    floating around on how a VC could be used in journalism.
>> Manu Sporny:  One of the things is not credentialing journalists
>>    but giving them a stronger set of VCs that says they work for NY
>>    times and have published articles X, Y, Z. That's not necessarily
>>    where the focus would be. We have education folks that want to
>>    credential people with certain training. But what I've heard
>>    about VC and fake news is ...
>> Manu Sporny:  Can you even identify whether a story has been
>>    vetted by a professional. Basic fact checking. Having a VC that
>>    points to a specific article on the Web that says NY times,
>>    CNN/Whatever has factually inaccurate. When people click on
>>    clickbait and end up on a site the browser can say the site has
>>    been identified by X as factually inaccurate.
>> Manu Sporny:  It's the same kind of warning for malware/bad SSL
>>    cert sites.
>> Manu Sporny:  That's the ability to create a VC to say "This is a
>>    bad website or bad story" and being able to follow your noise
>>    back to the proof. You don't have to trust any particular
>>    institution. Right now you depend on Google Chrome, for example,
>>    to tell you if a site is a phishing site. Combating fake news may
>>    require a more decentralized solution.
>> Ryan Grant: "We ALSO stamp: all the news that DIDN'T fit our
>>    print"
>> Manu Sporny:  Many different websites having their own lists of
>>    what is fake news and isn't.
>> Manu Sporny:  The person that's browsing the Web can choose what
>>    the sources of news are. That has broad concerns. People can get
>>    biased news -- huge discussion. The simple fake that an
>>    organization a journalism organization can issue a VC stating
>>    whether something is factually accurate or inaccurate is another
>>    possible signature that's useful for people browsing the Web.
>> Manu Sporny:  That's one way to combat fake news.
>> David Chadwick:  Couple of problems with that. If you take
>>    someone like Briebart, sometimes the news will be true or
>>    sometimes fake, publishing a VC saying the site is bad may lend
>>    the issuer of the claim in court for libel.
>> David Chadwick:  Two people see an incident and report it in
>>    different ways as well. Could both be true based on perspective.
>> David Chadwick:  Publishing a credential on one site and saying
>>    another site is fake news is problematic.
>> Manu Sporny:  I agree.
>> Matt Stone: That's why fake news issues are so insidious -
>>    blending fake stories w/ real stories gives the fake ones
>>    "creditability"  -- granularity to vouch for validity is
>>    essential
>> Nathan George:  This adds to what David just mentioned, it's
>>    really easy to incentivize someone to forget but not for
>>    information that they know. It's really hard to cryptographically
>>    know that a negative reputation exists because they won't flow to
>>    the end user. That creates lots of different problems from a
>>    journalists perspective. We can easily let journalists create
>>    lots of positive assertations though. To let people trace
>>    information back to know whether it's credible. It will be much
>>    easier to distinguish good journalism from casual blogging, etc
>>    with that approach.
>> Manu Sporny: +1 To what Nathan just said - agree that negative
>>    reputation has its problem.
>> Lionel Wolberger:  One clarifying case for me was that when the
>>    holocaust denier was brought to trial, they used a fake book that
>>    was cited. In the spirit of agile and lean develop we can grab
>>    onto some aspect to move things forward. My opinion on the
>>    problem side -- having an overlay on the page for verified
>>    facts...
>> Nathan George: To add to my earlier point, forcing disclosure of
>>    negative reputation events introduces a censorship choke point,
>>    where focusing on positive attestations helps differentiate
>>    in-depth research and real journalism from more casual statements
>>    without that level of attestation
>> Lionel Wolberger:  With different authorities signing things,
>>    would allow for even so called "fake news" -- we have different
>>    dimensions, people rarely have a shared anchor to have a
>>    discussion. In interest of society have all voices raised and
>>    only label malicious. It's difficult to label a website because
>>    it's not canonical, can't hash it. Moving forward on something,
>>    on the positive side, I'm excited Evan is here because I didn't
>>    realize NY times had people in this space.
>> Lionel Wolberger:  Maybe get a trusted authority to sign
>>    statements -- and go with the snopes model that people
>>    understand. A page with "Here's the issue, X conspiracy" and
>>    these are the claims about it, and who signed them.
>> Joe Andrieu: I expect that VCs from Journalists about "facts" are
>>    less likely than Journalists providing a link to their own fact
>>    checking. That's why we trust journalists: because they are both
>>    trained and committed to an ethical process of factual
>>    investigation.
>> Lionel Wolberger:  Then people clicking on clickbait and see at a
>>    glance what they consider fake news or not. This would allow a
>>    decentralized way that anyone could verify claims and gravitate
>>    towards what they trust.
>> Joe Andrieu: Which is to say "facts" feels arbitrarily black and
>>    white and the most interesting cases are more nuanced
>> Lionel Wolberger:  I wanted to sneak in wikipedia footnotes,
>>    those are pretty good. Maybe some kind of model where we could
>>    cite a fact and go to that style of footnote and it would be
>>    signed and you could access the certificate.
>> Moses Ma:  Our company works in deep learning and machine
>>    learning. We need new tech to address this, advanced reputation
>>    systems to use adaboost -- maybe better solutions in this area.
>> Joe Andrieu: +1 For wikipedia footnotes as inspiration
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I'm interested in the combined insights from
>>    Nathan and Lionel. Ideally there's a way to tag facts and
>>    reference them without expecting users to learn a formal grammar
>> Evan Sandhaus:  To build on some of the observations -- I
>>    appreciate the folks who grew the NY times as credible. I grew up
>>    in Kansas and not everyone there feels the same way :). We have
>>    to be sensitive to it, what is and isn't a credible source. With
>>    someone with two degrees in CS, I love absolute boolean claims.
>>    This is true this is false. The way most journalism plays out,
>>    from a formal reasoning perspective there are few things where
>>    you can say something is false. The claim that can be made more
>>    reliably made ...
>> Evan Sandhaus:  Is that this piece contains misleading claims and
>>    this is what they are.
>> Manu Sporny: That one statement was worth this entire
>>    discussion!!! ^^^
>> Evan Sandhaus:  I might encourage this group applying the tech to
>>    that. Whether than saying this article is X and X is false.
>>    Better to say this article says X and that's a misleading claim.
>> Matt Stone: +1 For that
>> Manu Sporny: That's a great takeaway...
>> Moses Ma:  Thanks, Evan!
>> Evan Sandhaus:  Thanks all!
>> Nathan George: +1 To kimhd's sentiment, the user shouldn't think
>>    of this as a new grammar, it is important to get the use case
>>    right.  In fact, how sources themselves sign the data they
>>    provide may be the most helpful enhancement.
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I also like the browser usability that Manu
>>    and Evan described
>> Ryan Grant:  I wanted to add that the wikipedia idea sounded
>>    awesome. I'd like VC in my news streams. Financial stories where
>>    only the financial numbers were verifiable -- perhaps by a news
>>    source that specializes in financial reports or companies signing
>>    those sorts of things themselves.
>> Ryan Grant:  All kinds of news could be built on that.
>> Moses Ma:  Excellent input. Would like to switch the perspective
>>    but to look into identifying someone who is not a human.
>> Moses Ma:  Any ideas on how to use decentralized ID on how
>>    someone is a person and not just a way to boost Google numbers.
>> Adam Migus:  Observations and points: It seems to me that when we
>>    talk about the edges of this community, the people that are
>>    journalists, editors, sources... that to me is a place where we
>>    need to talk about identity and authoritative identity, maybe a
>>    bank might vouch for someone etc.
>> Joe Andrieu: Wanted to riff on Ryan's note: embedding VCs in a
>>    story to ground certain facts, eg., financial #s. that could
>>    scale quite well. not to say "microformats" but getting authors
>>    to include VCs as part of their story is powerful idea
>> Adam Migus:  At the end of the day that's needed and the place
>>    it's needed. Then we get to the content, fake real, factually
>>    real, etc. Then it becomes more consensus driven and less about
>>    identity. You want to identify people are real when writing,
>>    editing...
>> Adam Migus:  Then when it's on the Web you might not want to tie
>>    that back to a real individual, sources in particular...
>> Adam Migus:  I wanted to echo what Evan said, this boils down to
>>    fact checking. There is a whole community that's trying to bite
>>    off -- the librarian community -- concern about youth for vetting
>>    stories, if we're going to make it about content then make it
>>    about the facts in the content rather than curating stories for
>>    sites.
>> Lionel Wolberger:  I wonder if it would be helpful to provide a
>>    simple certificate and policy "I am a human" and people could
>>    voluntarily append and it would help us to identify bots.
>>    Everything is slightly automated but that might help.
>> Joe Andrieu: +1 To collective attestations, including those that
>>    have real-world costs or barriers for automated agents
>> Nathan George:  I wanted to add a note, talking about
>>    attestations, having a network of people making them that's one
>>    of the best resources. I can present attestations that I have a
>>    bank account without saying with whom, it starts to become hard
>>    for bots to make those claims. Bringing in richness of the world
>>    so it's hard for bots ... so people who aren't trying to
>>    influence algorithms.
>> Matt Stone:  The question of curation and the role of bots is
>>    quite different in this space. I love aggregators and curators of
>>    news. But the role of a bot impersonating a person and doing
>>    likes/+1s, etc. provides a megaphone effect for news articles
>>    that might not have an audience otherwise, false volume.
>> Matt Stone:  That seems like an area we might really dig into.
>>    Who is or what is doing those sorts of activities.
>> Moses Ma:  Great idea, something we should work on.
>> Moses Ma:  Anyone else?
>> Nathan George: Ideally you have a network of attestations that
>>    shows you have the richness of a real person in the real world.
>>    Allowing folks to make selective disclosure credentials (or
>>    entity profiles) across their domains allows them to bring in the
>>    richness of being a real human without having to strongly vet any
>>    one particular public identity.  We want to be careful about how
>>    we model these items so that we don't switch the current systems
>>    vulerabilities for a new
>> Nathan George: Set that has the similar issues.
>> Joe Andrieu:  This notion that Nathan introduced, claims that
>>    have a real world cost, it's a great idea, there's also a nugget
>>    that what we're really talking about is economic cost of
>>    defrauding the system. If we can create systems that are
>>    economically feasible for humans but not for bots it opens up
>>    options to consider.
>> Ryan Grant: Only human-level bots need apply
>> Moses Ma:  Looking at the underlying economics, yes. Like spam,
>>    if spam is free we'll have it.
>> Lionel Wolberger: +1 To Joe's idea of having a 'cost' for bots
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To dlongley. Maybe this is my bias, but it
>>    seems like there are many technical approaches to identify this
>>    behavior. It would have to be fine tuned and would need to allow
>>    disputes/resolution. But this actually sounds easier than many
>>    positive approaches
>> Joe Andrieu:  Yes, and cryptography, can increase cost to game
>>    system to help prevent it.
>> Nathan George: +1 To helping journalists get engaged in how they
>>    might leverage verifiable claims
>> Manu Sporny:  Obvious next step is to get journalists engaged to
>>    understand what they want to do. If you look at fact checkers,
>>    there is wikipedia model which has been proven to be good,
>>    there's a way to pursue that but I'm wondering if hearing from
>>    journalists first would be a good thing.
>> Manu Sporny:  Picking something that is funded rather than
>>    volunteers. So asking paid people who go out to get the news --
>>    asking what tools we can provide to them and delivering good news
>>    would be the next step.
>> Manu Sporny:  Who at the NY times/Getty do we need to talk to?
>> Manu Sporny:  To make that happen.
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Also +1 to get journalists engaged, to ensure
>>    we build a _relevant_ solution
>> Manu Sporny:  Let's engage journalists to get them more
>>    integrated into the group. Anything else we do, I think is a wild
>>    guess that is most likely not going to pan out.
>> Ryan Grant:  Adding low-hanging fruit for journalists -- it seems
>>    like if we could get them just signing subsections of the
>>    articles they publish so that quotes from those articles could be
>>    verified, it would be systemic and not change their work flow.
>>    Then people could say the NY times gave me this verified quote.
>> Moses Ma:  How much money do you think we need to raise to get
>>    this initiative under way?
>> Moses Ma:  If we got one Republican donor and one Democratic
>>    donor it would look like a bipartisan effort that is inclusive
>> Manu Sporny:  I don't think we know what we're doing yet -- so we
>>    need to first get journalists involved on some low hanging thing.
>>    Maybe they identify something that only takes $1 million to
>>    achieve or something that takes $15 million. We need a good set
>>    of discussions with Reuters, AP, NY times, etc. we have
>>    connections there. We need to hear from them what they want to
>>    see then we can know money amounts.
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  I did have one other action item that I can
>>    assign to myself. Lots of good insight here, not having thought
>>    through the problem space here, lots of good perspectives. From
>>    the minutes I'd like to draw specifically what I see as key
>>    insights and approaches.
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Thank you Moses too.
>> Moses Ma:  Claire is graphically recording so we'll have a
>>    picture of what we've been saying.
>> Moses Ma:  An old friend of highschool is now CEO of Washington
>>    Post so will reach out to get them involved as well.
>> Joe Andrieu: To manu's point: if we have a specific proposal, we
>>    might consider applying for a Knight Foundation grant
>>    https://www.knightfoundation.org/challenges/knight-news-challenge
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Would like to wrap up the mission statement
>>    if we can.
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:https://goo.gl/sNs2vl
>> Manu Sporny: +1 To JoeAndrieu
>> Topic: Mission Statement
>> Manu Sporny:https://goo.gl/sNs2vl
>> Joe Andrieu: Hmmm... may not be an active news challenge
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Three outstanding items.
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Let me pick off the easy ones. Christopher
>>    put a comment about "proof of existence" may not be appropriate,
>>    it's a tactic supporting a solution.
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  I'd be fine striking that.
>> Dave Longley: +1
>> Manu Sporny: +1 To strike
>> Moses Ma: A thought occurred to me about Agile and VC - minimally
>>    viable veracity. haha
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Next issue, credential longevity. I'm fine
>>    dropping as long as we make it clear that our approaches are
>>    allowing recipient centric credentials. Which brings us to the
>>    last one ...
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  "Presentation of proofs by the bearer" ...
>>    David Chadwick's concerns were about stolen claims where
>>    "bearership" is all that is needed as proof.
>> Manu Sporny:  A bearer credential is like a carnival ticket, if
>>    you are the bearer you can swap credentials around. Anyone who
>>    gets a hold of it can use it and it's valid. There are some cases
>>    where you want a bearer credential like voting. There are good
>>    uses for bearer credentials and we say we're seeking solutions
>>    inclusive of.
>> Nathan George: This is part of what selective disclosure helps
>>    support, it allows you to leverage non-bearer information to
>>    establish the authority or validity of items that are effectively
>>    bearer credentials
>> Dave Longley:  I think DavidC's point is mostly to point of
>>    "proof is that you're bearing the credential" - he said he was
>>    satisfied w/ the language that we're using. We're talking about
>>    presenting proofs other than bearership. [scribe assist by Manu
>>    Sporny]
>> Moses Ma: +1 For selective disclosure and zero knowledge proofs
>> David Chadwick:  You're right, when it's saying "proofs" it's not
>>    just bearer credentials so there's something other than
>>    ownership/possession. Even with online voting you have a one time
>>    password you have to put in as well, and that's a "proof". One
>>    time password -- stealing the credential not good enough.
>> David Chadwick:  Just that you possess it is something we want to
>>    get away from. It would be a backward step to say that the mere
>>    possession is sufficient.
>> Ryan Grant: Well yes, we do normally require the issuer to
>>    re-sign their claim.  but the person who the claim is about bears
>>    it.  did we choose an overloaded word for our
>>    individually-curated set of claims?
>> David Chadwick:  A bearer credential is like ... total random
>>    stranger presents something, nothing else needed to get in.
>> Moses Ma: Just wanted to say bye! It was fun brainstorming with
>>    y'all!
>> Joe Andrieu: +1 Think the language is non-contentious
>> Dave Longley:  I think the language that we're using isn't
>>    contentious [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
>> Ryan Grant: WHOOO!
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  We are done with the mission statement!
>>    [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
>> Dave Longley: +1 To WHOOO!
>> Topic: Administrative Items
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  I will update the scribe list after this to
>>    get more disciplined again.
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Thank you Lionel for forcing me to realize
>>    that.
>> Lionel Wolberger: *Blush*
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  I also want to get better about tracking our
>>    work items. I'm soliciting contributors ...
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Life cycle of VC is in excellent shape. For
>>    DIDs need higher level participation.
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Anyone interested in Data Minimization and
>>    Selective Disclosure we could use a lot of help there.
>> Nathan George: We also had a cryptographer on the call today to
>>    talk about CL and try to get something scheduled for the Digital
>>    Verification CG
>> Lionel Wolberger: I'm interested in minimization and selective
>>    disclosure
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Thanks again on the bots and the fake news,
>>    Moses, see you all next week.
>> Nathan George: Kim, we had Mike Lodder on the call to get
>>    something going for CL signature schemes, selective disclosure
>>    and data minimization
> -- 
> *Moses Ma | Partner*
> moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com | moses@ngenven.com
> v+1.415.568.1068 | skype mosesma
> FutureLab provides strategy, ideation and technology for breakthrough 
> innovation.
> earn more at www.futurelabconsulting.com.
> Or whet your appetite by reading /Agile Innovation/ 
> <http://www.amazon.com/Agile-Innovation-Revolutionary-Accelerate-Engagement/dp/B00SSRSZ9A> 
> and /Soulful Branding/ 
> <http://www.amazon.com/Soulful-Branding-Unlock-Hidden-Company/dp/1515114414> 
> by FutureLab experts.
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2017 14:52:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:45 UTC