Re: Avoiding DID-landia at RWoT8

+1 to small teams to avoid "DID-landia" (great term!). My only concern is
that I passionately want to be part of both the group working on the ABNF
(it's practically part of my DNA at this point ;-) *and* the editorial team
(because I care so much about getting the text right).

If needed I'll prioritize the ABNF work and sync up later with the
editorial team. But I want to go on record as really wanting to work with
both.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 8:47 AM Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com> wrote:

> Agreed. Speaking as a producer and facilitator of RWOT, we'll almost
> certainly establish some sort of limit on group size and work with teams to
> break up into smaller, more responsive teams.
>
> So, think about what smaller issues you might be able to tackle, as Manu
> suggests. During ideation and selection, we'll tease out which have good
> support for separate issues. Also, I think we can invest more time in
> clarification & feedback at the end of the day, rather than just a
> report-out. This will let other DID supporters contribute, not just get an
> update.
>
> I'll bring these issues up on the agenda planning meeting we have today.
>
> -j
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> A large chunk of us are going to be at Rebooting the Web of Trust 8 in
> Barcelona next week. During RWoT in Boston, a lot of us ended up
> gravitating toward the DID spec discussions which ended up being a very
> large group of 18+ people.
>
> Large groups mean that people don't get to speak and collaborate as much
> as they should, and different work products don't get moved forward (or
> don't happen at all)... because, who wants to miss the fireworks! :P
>
> So, instead of DID-landia, I suggest we focus on small pockets of people
> working on DID-related things. Here's a proposal for the sorts of groups
> we could create:
>
> * DID Use Cases, where the focus is on not adding new use cases, but
>   rapidly refining the excellent work that Joe has put into the
>   current DID Use Cases document to prepare it for a DID Working Group.
>
> * DID Editorial Issues that make the spec difficult to read/understand.
>   This is the group that would most likely consist of the current
>   Editors making editorial changes to clean the flow of the spec up.
>
> * DID Document Features (current/new ones) that need use cases, debate,
>   and spec text hammering before a PR can be created. This would be ABNF
>   changes for services, DID namespaces, etc.
>
> Other DID-related things:
>
> * DID Resolver -- making headway on that spec?
>
> * DID Auth -- what's new? MikeJ's paper on OIDC+DIDs seemed interesting
>   and would fit in a group like this.
>
> * Two-factor integration? FIDO? BOPS? etc.?
>
> We may want to set aside 2-3 hours in the last day for a report out from
> all the groups that did DID-related stuff so we can at least sync so
> that folks don't feel like they missed out on stuff or didn't have their
> concerns heard.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
> https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Andrieu, PMP
> joe@joeandrieu.com
> +1(805)705-8651
> http://blog.joeandrieu.com
>
>