Re: Credentials CG charter vote result

I've had a relatively aweful role of standing for others overtime and i
neither believe i'm specifically targeted (perhaps amongst the most
affected, for a variety of reasons) and well
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1oUsSlPEh8erOdkQJCLzFHBaqp7AYOJCqDw82YrCg9f4/edit
-
the thing about any project, is that they're never worth anything when
they've just got started...

Yet looking at http://transcopyright.org/ /
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3l7CpnpyGw - i get the feeling alot - that
i'm certainly not alone when considering the frustrations I express at
times.  We need to keep going.  it'll all work out in the wash.

tim.h.
skype: sailing_digital


On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 03:01 Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
wrote:

> 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
>