Re: Credentials CG charter vote result

Tim,
I see you have concerns and I'm sincerely sorry that I'm not getting them.
I am new to chairing a W3C group, and it is really difficult to figure out
expectations and protocols without support and knowledge transfer from the
people who know better than I.

Applied to me, the "malice"/"incompetence" quote is entirely valid :) -- I
simply thought I was updating the charter in the correct location. Not an
ounce of disrespect was behind that action, just incompetence. :)

I don't want to distract the good work we are doing in this group. And
clearly I can use the help. Can I ask for your help in outlining and
implementing a solution to your concerns? I understand that the meeting
time is inconvenient for you -- this was largely informed by process of
elimination and polling the group. We didn't get any pushback at the time,
and while we can't change it immediately, we could try to change it in the
near future.

In the near term, I would really appreciate your help in managing the group
communications because you have a lot of background and insight. At the
same time, I ask that you understand we are all doing the best we can with
our limited schedules. I don't know of a single person in this group this
is intentionally taking actions to marginalize you (if I read your concerns
correctly) and if they were it would be aggressively addressed.

So, this thread has run its course. Let's take this offline. Send me a pm
so we can chat in depth -- it can be 2 am my time :) and we can figure out
an action plan.

Best,
Kim

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 6:09 AM Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Kim. the page referring to the original charter is currently not
> discoverable on the CG site.  I find that rather disrespectful.  before
> this conversation it had entirely gone as you simply updated the page with
> the old date-stamps, etc.  i found that disrespectful too.
>
> I have found raising the issues an unfortunate issue in itself; and the
> way this is now left, is that these historical notes - are still not on the
> CG page.
>
> and now i'm defending myself further for having opened my mouth, as though
> - it's simply not positive.
>
> The work that i spent countless hours committed to contributing towards
> the development of these works; that led, overtime - to something that
> you're so proud to be involved with; is now, from a technical point of
> view, seemingly in another group. Elsewhere.
>
> With regard to fixing the hyperlinks in your document, i recommend you
> find someone who will feel good about the commitment of time and energy
> they provide to do it.  I feel like i've been version controlled out of the
> provenance.  Lets leave it that way for now.
>
> All the best.
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:25 Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tim, I ask that you drop the sarcasm and disrespect. I've spent a lot of
>> effort making this information discoverable and (I believe) have made
>> improvements. The community values your positive contributions, so I ask in
>> spirit of collaboration that you provide concrete, constructive
>> suggestions, submit PRs, or open github issues for any concerns you would
>> like the chairs to address.
>>
>> That's all from me. Best,
>> Kim
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 5:11 AM Timothy Holborn <
>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Whats your suggestion to make it discoverable?
>>>
>>> Honestly.  IDK.  I"ll put in my presentations how i have to refer people
>>> to either the non-discoverable link and this list traffic; and/or the
>>> archive.org versioning to track history.
>>>
>>> far simpler.  cheers.  i'm sure it'll be blunt enough for others too.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:04 Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > I reverted the page with the original charter to the previous state
>>>> and referenced it from the latest:
>>>> https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter-20140808/
>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:27 PM Timothy Holborn <
>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kim.  can you point to the old charter?
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/page/5/  ?  I still can't
>>>>> find it?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 16:54 Timothy Holborn <
>>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 16:51 Timothy Holborn <
>>>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Kim,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apologies if the meta was difficult.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spec needs to support URIs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given http-signatures[1] is now in a different group[2]. perhaps it
>>>>>> doesn't matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (guess it looks a bit like a backdoor listing, technically - i'm not
>>>>>> sure it matters.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]  https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/
>>>>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/community/digital-verification/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> more later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim.H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 16:05 Kim Hamilton Duffy <
>>>>>>> kim@learningmachine.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Tim,
>>>>>>>> Could you be precise about your concerns? I value directness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Kim
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:53 PM Timothy Holborn <
>>>>>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers.  We've been doing some work in the area, indeed i'm doing
>>>>>>>>> some work on it right now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> seeAlso: (not exhaustively)
>>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1437
>>>>>>>>> - https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1525
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and notably also:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Talks/2001/12-semweb-offices/all.htm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> therein also; is the underlying assumption of a URI.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 14:40 Adam Sobieski <
>>>>>>>>> adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* ‎Friday‎, ‎October‎ ‎20‎, ‎2017 ‎9‎:‎24‎ ‎PM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:* Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Kim Hamilton Duffy
>>>>>>>>>> <kim@learningmachine.com>, 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> 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> 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/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy
>>>>>>>> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
>>>>>>>> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
>>>>>>>> 400 Main Street Building E19-732, Cambridge, MA 02139
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> kim@learningmachine.com | kimhd@mit.edu
>>>>>>>> 425-652-0150 | LearningMachine.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy
>>>> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
>>>> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
>>>> 400 Main Street Building E19-732, Cambridge, MA 02139
>>>>
>>>> kim@learningmachine.com | kimhd@mit.edu
>>>> 425-652-0150 | LearningMachine.com
>>>>
>>> --
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy
>> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
>> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
>> 400 Main Street Building E19-732, Cambridge, MA 02139
>>
>> kim@learningmachine.com | kimhd@mit.edu
>> 425-652-0150 | LearningMachine.com
>>
> --
Kim Hamilton Duffy
CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
400 Main Street Building E19-732, Cambridge, MA 02139

kim@learningmachine.com | kimhd@mit.edu
425-652-0150 | LearningMachine.com