Re: Proposal to leave the name alone for now

On 07/24/2017 10:34 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 07/22/2017 03:40 PM, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote:
>> - Keep the name "Credentials CG"
> +1, keep the name.
> I've found the arguments made by folks like DavidC, JoeA, ChristopherA,
> KimHD, RichardV, and others to be compelling... they've changed my mind
> on whether or not we should change the name or not.
> Fundamentally just about everything we do results in a credential. That
> is, asserting a credential of some kind is typically the result of all
> of the specifications we're working on.
> Credentials can be self-sovereign, or they can be centralized (and there
> are solid use cases for both). I think the community cares more about
> working on the self-sovereign credential problem as that results in
> empowering the most number of people on the planet, including those in
> vulnerable situations.
> On another level, we need to change the misguided notion that
> "credentials" are just usernames, passwords, and Google/Facebook login
> tokens.
> It's for those reasons that I'm now strongly in favor of keeping the
> name. It's specific, it's what we're doing, and it creates the least
> disruption for this community. We'll have to fight for it w/ the
> "security experts", but now that we've got our own "security experts"
> and if we're united behind the name, it'll make that fight easier.
>> - State very clearly in the mission that we're focused on
>> self-sovereignty, and that compatibility with centralized systems is
>> also within scope.
> +1
>> - Keep the Credentials CG and Digital Verification CG united
> +1

+1 to all of the above, well said.

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.

Received on Monday, 24 July 2017 14:41:30 UTC