Re: Credentials CG charter vote result

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<mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎October‎ ‎20‎, ‎2017 ‎9‎:‎24‎ ‎PM
To: Manu Sporny<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Kim Hamilton Duffy<mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>, public-credentials@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/