Re: Prioritizing Individual Sovereignty over Interoperability

You are right, my last comment went too far, I fully agree the community
is gaining much, not losing.

I think what I meant to say is that "DID" is losing (or changing) its
original meaning and intent if it we say that domain names, Facebook
usernames, etc. can also be DIDs.

If that is the community consensus at the end of the debate, great.
If we arrive at some middle ground that can enable the "bigger tent"
while still maintaining the original narrative, also great.


On 4/30/19 3:40 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 4/30/19 5:51 AM, Markus Sabadello wrote:
>> if we are at a point now where we seriously want to call a domain 
>> name a "decentralized identifier", then somehow we have suddenly
>> lost much of what this community has achieved in the last few years.
> That's a fairly negative way to look at it that ignores the nuance in
> this particular conversation.
> I understand where you're coming from, Markus, and I support many of the
> things that you want. In fact, I agree with much of your position with
> the exception of how you're characterizing the debate.
> We are not going to be able to build a bigger tent if we mischaracterize
> what a subset of our community is saying. Knocking down straw man
> arguments are easy, especially when you construct the straw man in a way
> that avoids the point of contention. I don't think you're doing that on
> purpose, but that's certainly what's being communicated via email.
> The point of contention is that a subset of the community does see the
> Web as decentralized (for some definition of "decentralized"). Insisting
> that the Web is not decentralized, which you're doing, avoids the point
> of contention.
> The truth of the matter is that decentralization is a continuum, just
> like privacy. We went through this debate early on in the Verifiable
> Credentials work, which resulted in consensus around this graphic:
> I expect this discussion to evolve in that direction.
> In the meantime, I disagree that the community has lost anything that
> we've achieved in the past several years. Quite the opposite, we've
> gained members in this community, we've grown RWoT larger than many of
> us imagined possible, we've gained allies around the world in support of
> this work... and as a result, we're trying to grow the tent.
> We are not losing... we are gaining, and we will will need to continue
> to keep an open mind, listen to potential allies, and be flexible,
> practical, and embrace criticism... as that's what got us to where we
> are today.
> -- manu

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2019 14:24:31 UTC