- From: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 22:22:12 +0100
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5f843dc7-fdf1-2134-efeb-c3b4ff13b3e3@danubetech.com>
I am also interested in both, but can't be there, so I hope to Zoom in a bit. Or at a minimum review the outcome after the RWoT dust has settled :) Markus On 2/20/19 10:08 PM, =Drummond Reed wrote: > +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 > <mailto: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 <mailto:joe@joeandrieu.com> > +1(805)705-8651 > http://blog.joeandrieu.com >
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2019 21:22:41 UTC