[MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2019-05-28 12pm ET

Thanks to Bill Barnhill for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-05-28/

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2019-05-28

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2019May/0071.html
Topics:
  1. Introductions and Reintroductions
  2. Announcements & Reminders
  3. Action Items
  4. Discuss New Work Item Process
Organizer:
  Kim Hamilton Duffy and Joe Andrieu and Christopher Allen
Scribe:
  Bill Barnhill
Present:
  Christopher Allen, Moses Ma, Joe Andrieu, Markus Sabadello, Brent 
  Zundel, Jeff Orgel, Amy Guy, Heather Vescent, Kim Hamilton Duffy, 
  Bill Barnhill, Manu Sporny, Yancy Ribbens, Ganesh Annan, Drummond 
  Reed, Dan Burnett, Kaliya Young, Samantha Mathews Chase
Audio:
  https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-05-28/audio.ogg

Bill Barnhill: Apologies, a problem calling in, will be on 
  momentarily
Christopher Allen: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LkqZ10z7FeV3EgMIQEJ9achEYMzy1d_2S90Q_lQ0y8M/edit#heading=h.ngyk8y939osi
Bill Barnhill is scribing.
Bill Barnhill is scribing.

Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions

Thanks!
Christopher Allen: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/announcements/
Markus Sabadello:  I’m Markus of Danube Tech. I’ve worked on 
  digital identity for a long time. I run the Thursday DID calls. 
  We’re making progress on PRs. I made progress on implementing 
  BTCR scheme support in Universal Resolver, which I created.

Topic: Announcements & Reminders

Markus Sabadello: Thursday DID calls: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qYBaXQMUoB86Alquu7WBtWOxsS8SMhp1fioYKEGCabE/
Christopher Allen:  There are currently weekly DiD calls on 
  Thursdays. 2100-2130 UT. There is a meeting page where they keep 
  track of their call. If you’re interested in helping with a wrap 
  up report on DiDs that’s a good place to be.
  ... Do you have any idea how long the DiD calls will continue?
Markus Sabadello:  At least 3 more weeks.
Drummond Reed: I expect we'll need at least another month to get 
  to the Community Final Draft of the DID spec and a first draft of 
  the DID Resolution spec.
Christopher Allen:  There are a number of identity events that 
  have lots of people this summer. If you know of any let us know 
  and we can add it to the CCG community list of events.
Christopher Allen: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22action%3A+review+next%22

Topic: Action Items

Dan Burnett: FYI, "Voxeo" is me.  That's a really old corporate 
  affiliation for that phone!
Christopher Allen:  First action item is revisiting the docspec 
  tool. Kim, do you want to talk about that?
Kaliya Young: Identity Events coming up. Identity North in 
  Toronto is next week.
Kaliya Young: I will be presenting about Self-Sovereign Identity 
  at RightsCon in Tunis the 2nd week of June.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/76
Kaliya Young: I will be attending ID4Africa in Johannesburg the 
  third week fo June 18-20 hopefully next year this community can 
  have a place on the agenda there.
Kaliya Young: The last week of June is Identiverse in Washington 
  DC and it would be great if we could have a DIF/CCG/SSI meetup of 
  some kind at that event.
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Actually, I’ll address this portion of 
  action items. The latest draft of our work item process is 
  greatly simplified. We can probably discuss it over the mailing 
  list over the next week. There is one work item I’d like to talk 
  to... A doc to spec conversion tool. There is a concern about the 
  process being very technical. I think we have some proposals for 
  how to push that off to the very end of the workflow.
Christopher Allen: @Identitywoman Can you post an issue with 
  details in https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues so we can 
  add it to announcements (unless you want to directly to a PR to 
  the announcements repo)
I’d be happy to contribute on that tool, FYI.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/75
Kaliya Young: Finally the D-Web summit/Camp is happening in July 
  and they are inviting everyone to come - 
  https://www.eventbrite.com/affiliate-register?eid=60467862003&affid=276537672
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Next one on the list is issue #75. This is 
  the registries meta-process. A process that should apply to all 
  registries. Manu wrote it over a year ago.
  ... Next week we should be able to discuss that more.
  ... I’ll yield to Manu.
Manu Sporny:  We should ping Sandro, and marcosc on the doc to 
  spec tool (#76?).  Bill Barnhill also offered to contribute on 
  that tool.

Topic: Discuss New Work Item Process

Christopher Allen: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PbyZ0UtI6yzr5V_r-iseVyrZIWPm1BLXWsLeEV-mJvY
Christopher Allen:  The chairs have put together a draft of what 
  the process should look like (see link above)
Kim Hamilton Duffy: New work item: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vj811aUbs8GwZUNo-LIFBHafsz4rZTSnRtPv7RQaqNc/edit
Kim Hamilton Duffy: View mode: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vj811aUbs8GwZUNo-LIFBHafsz4rZTSnRtPv7RQaqNc/view
Christopher Allen:  We’ve been through several versions of these. 
  Basically we wanted to move up from a ‘anybody can propose 
  anything’ from two years ago to allowing for a little bit of 
  filtering.
  ...we went a little too far with informal items and other 
  things as tasks. In this version everything that is a work item 
  is a publication of some kind.
  ...It is something to give to the WG, or something like a 
  report on registry process.
  ...There are some requirements we have: ..see document..  Of 
  important note, we must make sure that what we create is note 
  portrayed as a standard. What we do is create WGs that can go 
  through the process. We are very focused on Verifiable Credential 
  architecture, incl. SSI,verification of proofs, etc.
Christopher Allen: https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/
  ...Anything that advances on of those issues is an acceptable 
  work item. For a work item to move forward it needs at least one 
  group member to volunteer as being lead editor and one member 
  from a different company (excepts negotiable) to be a co-editor.
  ...URL above is the credentials official page on the W3C site. 
  It has two major sections at the top: final reports and drafts. 
  The final reports were part of the CCG before 2017, where we 
  created a community report on verifiable claims, data model, and 
  use cases. That is what the verifiable claims WG used as input.
  ...if you look at the drafts that we are currently working on 
  you’ll see the Decentralized Identifiers work. One thing to note 
  as a fundamental difference is that their is some extra rigor 
  required for a final report.
  ...Basically there are things that can become final reports, an 
  example being the DiD community speciification or other community 
  specifications; community notes; and finally community 
  commentary. The last is a note that is not intended to transition 
  to a WG.
  ...I’d like to talk a bit about Community Drafts and then the 
  stages of a final report.
  ...We are perpetual, but WGs are not (they have a 1-2 year time 
  frame). AFAIK we are the first group to tackle registries and 
  other things not intended to go final, but intended to be ongoing 
  work.  Also I want to make sure people are aware that the W3C has 
  a process WG looking into how to handle these perpetual items.
  ...I want to make sure there are no questions or comments on 
  these high level things before we go into more details on the 
  process.
Manu Sporny: https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Maybe this is my out? :)
Manu Sporny:  I noted two things: kimhd was accidentally dropped 
  as one of the chairs. Second thing is that we may be missing some 
  of the drafts in the list. I feel like we are working on more 
  than just DiDs in the group.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I think it required existing chairs to add 
  (we were able to do that with Joe)
Christopher Allen:  Yes. To be clear, I just added DIDs. As for 
  the chair we’ll do something to fix that, may require a community 
  resolution from the group which we can do at a later meeting.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Work item list: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/blob/master/work_items.md
Manu Sporny:  The final reports, especially with the DiDs 
  spec...it was exceedingly difficult to get licensing committments 
  for the specification.
Christopher Allen:  We’ll be talking about that. With a lower 
  level IPR reviews in the early parts of the process.
Heather Vescent:  I think the usability of the document, it does 
  a really good job for use cases, but not in how to use it. I’m 
  wondering how to explain it in a more accessible way: welcoming 
  for people to take ownership and for people to adopt the process. 
  I think that adding a more human aspect narrative, with examples, 
  will improve understanding of the process that we’re following 
  and will encourage people to stand up and take ownership on 
  things [CUT]
Future.
Christopher Allen:  I agree completely heathervescent. What we 
  are currently calling community commentary, that process is very 
  light. I definitely think we could have an example of how a 
  community commentary became final.
Heather Vescent:  I don’t think this document should be 
  considered complete until that is in there.
Christopher Allen:  Agreed. This is a draft.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/blob/master/work_items.md
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Regarding work items (see URL above). Back 
  when we started looking at this process, it’s the last part of 
  cleaning up the pipeline. We had a blanket thing on the W3C CCG 
  landing page, saying we do iteration on everything. However, when 
  I look at the page now that’s not clear. So we can post something 
  every now and then to show activity.
Manu Sporny: +1 To as much iteration as possible w/o developer 
  tooling.
Bill Barnhill:  My question is a simple one... more process. I 
  signed a CLA when I joined, is that the same thing as the 
  licensing agreement that you're talking about? [scribe assist by 
  Manu Sporny]
  ...Also, regarding your question heathervescent. Making this 
  more accessible, talking about github and respec. One of the 
  things that could work is iterating in Google Docs. If people are 
  are comfortable with using Google Docs, as the version history is 
  not as easy to go over. more technical docs might be version 
  controlled in Git, but for use cases and such Google Docs should 
  work.
Billlb: Is the license agreement we discussed different from 
  contributor agreement signed when I joined?
Amy Guy: I agree with being inclusive and I don't think that 
  requiring people to have a google account to particpate achieves 
  that
Christopher Allen:  No, same agreement.
Drummond Reed: +1 To Manu's point about making it easier for 
  newcomers
Manu Sporny:  It is the job of the people who wrote the process 
  to determine where a newcomer is in the process, using perhaps 
  heathervescent’s suggestion of pairing people up. It is not the 
  responsibility of the newcomer.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I can't repeat this enough -- we will need 
  community assistance to help make this happen
Manu Sporny: Agreed.
Bill Barnhill: Agreed, and an additional +1
Joe Andrieu: +1 To @kimhd
Spectext, etc
Manu Sporny: +1 To "one person needs to know"... not "everyone 
  needs to know or care"
Christopher Allen:  Right now the problem is our goal is for 
  anyone to create a work item. If we say you don’t need to 
  understand the process to create a work item, then we’ll be in 
  trouble.
Kaliya Young: Ok. I put all the events in the announcements 
  section.
  ...Right now the chairs cannot be the people responsible for 
  that.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Note that what we had been calling "informal 
  work items" can be rough drafts. Meaning: just get started
  ...Right now, what I’ve proposed is that rough drafts don’t 
  need to be in a CCG repo, they can be in a Google Doc They can be 
  in that rough draft stage, iterate, etc. At the point someone 
  wants to make it a CCG thing then it goes into a CCG repo using 
  #respec format. In the case of specifications we already know 
  there are advantages to using Github issues for things.
  ...The release drafts and published drafts...When the editors 
  have some level of completion then they number it with a dot 
  version and release it outside the community for comment. We’d 
  like to have more published drafts on there. Then people can 
  continue to iterate, though a number of things need to become 
  final at some point.
  ...That’s the categories, stages, of a final report. Could be 
  we should separate community commentary into one less stage, and 
  even community commentary has to become a final report.
Samantha Mathews Chase:  It’s about putting something into a 
  common tongue that is managed by the chairs and can be easily 
  understood.
Christopher Allen:  There are tools that can help, but there is a 
  limit on volunteer time. We need each group to have at least one 
  person who understands the process reasonably well, we don’t need 
  everyone to understand the whole process. Ok, I’d like to talk a 
  little bit about how this process works. Item 3- work item drafts 
  can take several yeas.
  ...We have a special new work item template. If you go to 
  issues on gituhub and say new work item it will ask you questions 
  to help with a work item issue creation. The key is that the 
  group has some kind of document (Markdown or Google docs), and 
  the editor(s) should be listed. At the initial stage there 
  doesn’t necessarily have to be two editors. The tool that kimhd 
  wrote will label a work item appropriately. That’s the end of the 
  proposal phase.
  ...The next phase is the Adoption Phase. Typically the proposal 
  will be discussed for a week on the mailing list, and call. If 
  there appears to be enough interest then the chairs will move the 
  work item forward in the process. We have seen examples recently. 
  If we can’t get a second editor to commit though then we have to 
  filter due to the amount of work items we have currently.
Christopher Allen: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/blob/master/work_items.md#draft-specifications-and-reports
  ...The recent issue, hopefully tha person will persist and get 
  community adoption further in order to continue and perhaps get a 
  second editor.
  ...The next phase is actually working on the drafts. As the 
  editors are ready we might create a Google repo. We’ll work with 
  the editors to work on those drafts through the process until 
  there is some form of closure. This means we may pester you to 
  see how things are going. We also have some phases to manage IPR 
  risk. For example, to make sure are all controbutors have signed 
  the IPR agreement.
Heather Vescent: Question on the work items: what's going on with 
  the UNKNOWN work items? What happens when a project is abandoned?
  ...Finally we have the finalization phase.  Also, there is a 
  TBW (To Be Worked on). If the Chairs note that an item seems to 
  not have had progress then it is at the chairs discretion to 
  notify the editors that more progress is needed, and if no 
  further progress occurs, then the editors may be replaced or the 
  work item put on hold until there is more interest to drive 
  progress.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: They are not known :) we're trying to figure 
  out
  ...Again, the registry process is deferred for discussion for 
  now.
Heather Vescent: Much appreciated to bring organization to the 
  work item chaos.
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  If we are talking to you about informal work 
  items you can just work from the rough draft section and get 
  started.  Some of this is to address what we see as possibly 
  stuck because we don’t know what’s going on with some of the work 
  items.
Heather Vescent: Great. Thank you.
Have to drop
ChristpherA: The pinging may start next week. This document is 
  still in a rough draft stage, and will eventually be a community 
  report. People can work on the rough drafts as long as they want 
  before they make it an official CCG proposal.  We do still have 
  this requirement that editors must ensure that substantial 
  requirements are made by members. This is why actual changes have 
  to be accepted by the editors. The goal is to transition them to 
  become a respec
Document after becoming a rough draft. Note: MIRA was in this 
  form originally.
  ...We’re going to make it easier for people to go from a rough 
  draft in Google Docs or other form to a respect document. We 
  don’t want to use the valuable time of the weekly call for rough 
  drafts. We at least want to get people to the CCG internal 
  release draft stage.  A Github tagged release number is an 
  important marker for us. The version must be less than 1.0.
Do we use semver.org format for versions?
Joe Andrieu: Time to wrap up, Chris
ChistopherA: When editors want we can make it a public released 
  draft. The editors trigger this, and then every W3C member gets 
  an email saying “The W3C CCG has published the draft ...”. The 
  IPR risk mitigation tools are only used at the last stage, the 
  final report.
  ...The final report stage is something we haven’t done yet. Any 
  questions on the stages?
Moses Ma: Bye everyone! Thanks for all the hard work!
End of call

Received on Saturday, 1 June 2019 17:57:12 UTC