- From: <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:30:20 -0700
- To: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Drummond Reed for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-06-11/
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 2019-06-11
Agenda:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2019Jun/0010.html
Topics:
1. Introductions and Re-introductions
2. Announcements and Reminders
3. Action Items
4. Rubrics Task Force
5. Credential CG Work Item Process Draft, simplified
Action Items:
1. create an github issue against DID spec. Spreadsheet, mark
ones people want to keep as normative
Organizer:
Christopher Allen and Kim Hamilton Duffy and Joe Andrieu
Scribe:
Drummond Reed
Present:
Kim Hamilton Duffy, Amy Guy, Joe Andrieu, Christopher Allen, Ted
Thibodeau, Justin Richer, Jonathan Holt, Moses Ma, Dan Burnett,
Markus Sabadello, Drummond Reed, Dmitri Zagidulin, Bill Barnhill,
Ken Ebert, Manu Sporny, Heather Vescent, Benjamin Young
Audio:
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-06-11/audio.ogg
Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Scribe list:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LkqZ10z7FeV3EgMIQEJ9achEYMzy1d_2S90Q_lQ0y8M/edit#heading=h.ngyk8y939osi
Drummond Reed is scribing.
Bill Barnhill: +Present
Introductions: Isaac works with Bloom (sp?) that works with
verifiable credentials and DIDs
Topic: Introductions and Re-introductions
Joe Andrieu: Rohan pinto
Rohan Pinto - 1Kosmos
Reintroductions: Rohan Pinto did a re-introduction
Topic: Announcements and Reminders
Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/announcements/
We also have Mike Engle - 1Kosmos on the call as well.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://zoom.us/j/7077077007
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Dedicated DID calls are 1-2:30PM Pacific
Time on Thursdays.
Clear here, listening over phone
Kim Hamilton Duffy: 2. #RebootingWebOfTrust IX Prague — September
3-6th
Kim Hamilton Duffy: 1. Https://www.WebOfTrust.info
TPAC 2019 - Sept 16-20 in Japan.
Dan Burnett: Will be at TPAC.
Joe Andrieu: Asked Markus about a pre-meetup in Vienna
Amy Guy: Anyone then roadtripping from vienna to prague?
Markus Sabadello: Yes, he is planning on a pre-meetup in Vienna
prior to Prague, two days early. The first day will be Sept 1.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Asked about TPAC because the chairs have an
overdue action item about booking space. Need to find out who is
going. Brent Zendel from Evernym and Ken Ebert from Sovrin will
be going.
Dan Burnett: If the DID WG is created before TPAC, then there
will be a meeting there.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: For upcoming meeting agendas, the
announcement page should have details. Waiting for completion of
DID calls.
...if there is any topic you want to see on the agenda, reach
out to the chairs.
Kim Hamilton Duffy:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/80
...first issue is uncompleted work items
...as a first work item candidate, the chairs would be happy to
provide mentorship suggestions
Kim Hamilton Duffy:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/79
...for #79, Kim is going to call on Manu
...Manu sent a message about 83 non-testable normative
statements in the DID spec
Kim Hamilton Duffy:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2019Jun/0008.html
...Kim would like to figure out what our next steps are.
Manu Sporny: The good news is that Andrew Jones has started on a
DID test suite.
Topic: Action Items
...he is starting early because "it bit us" with the verifiable
credentials spec
...it will verify if a DID is in the correct syntax, and
whether a DID document is valid
...identified 26 normative statements in the DID spec
...but also identified 83 normative statements that are not
testable
...normative statements may or may not be testable. Many
companies will ask for non-testable normative statements to be
removed.
...non-normative statements break down into a multiple
categories.
...normative statements about what a DID method specification
must do can be human-testable.
...those are okay to keep; may want to consolidate
...others are more suggestive, such as recommending that a DID
registry should not be centralized.
...Manu suggests that we should remove any of those statements
that will chew up a bunch of time to discuss.
...the third class is normative statements that are clearly
untestable, either by a machine or a human being.
...the email that was sent to the list was just a heads-up
about the count of the various normative statements.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Wanted to see if there was any followup we
need to be doing. Any other suggestions?
Markus Sabadello: Asked about use of uppercase MUST vs.
lowercase must
Justin Richer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174
Markus Sabadello: Open PR about lower case / upper case "must",
"should", etc: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/pull/209
Joe Andrieu: : Wants to talk about new Rubrics Task Force
Manu Sporny: Lowercase must/should/may is not normative.
Uppercase are normative, especially MUSTs. SHOULDs are sometimes
tested. MAYs are almost never tested.
...sometime people don't notice the difference of using the
capital format.
...so sometimes language changes make it clearer that the
requirement is not meant to be tested.
...secondly, about what we can do, Manu suggests we go ahead
and let the DID calls complete.
ACTION: create an github issue against DID spec. Spreadsheet,
mark ones people want to keep as normative
...we may need to create a Google doc and then mark the ones
that people want to keep normative to reduce the 83 number to
something that's more feasible, like 20.
Topic: Rubrics Task Force
Joe Andrieu: At the last DID call, it was agreed to create an
informal task force to agree on the scope of the Rubrics work,
and to kick it off.
Kim Hamilton Duffy:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/75
...Joe doesn't have a time yet, so it may not be next week, but
calls will start soon.
Joe Andrieu: Re : rubrics task force, email me at joe@legreq.com
if you want to join the calls
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Next topic is the registry meta-topic.
...we have some ongoing work items; registries is one of those.
...Manu introduced a process whereby any group can create a
registry.
...If we want to suggest our process as the best way to do
this, what do we do?
Christopher Allen: Some WGs are facing time limits, and must
finish on time, but after they are done, they often have leftover
items like registries.
...the CCG is a logical place to do that, and has agreed to.
...there is a Process Group at the W3C that decides about such
things.
...this group has discussed "evergreen working groups" that
have been chartered to be continual
...Christopher asked that group about registries
...Some members of the Process Group felt it was appropriate,
others felt that it should be a separate process
...their meetings are 7AM ET, so Christopher hoped that someone
else could monitor/work on this.
...that said, the CCG still doesn't have our own registry
process worked out
Topic: Credential CG Work Item Process Draft, simplified
Kim Hamilton Duffy: 2.
Https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vj811aUbs8GwZUNo-LIFBHafsz4rZTSnRtPv7RQaqNc/edit#heading=h.6vb19y4yyl3k
Manu Sporny: Soooo much better! :)
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Hopes that people find this much simpler
...wants to start with the work item process that applies to
any work item effort in the CCG.
...Kim hopes the state diagram is clear - it's a 40,000 foot
view
...the adoption process is how the supporter finds support in
the CCG
Manu Sporny: I think this should be proposed as the default W3C
CG process for groups larger than 10 active participants.
...once there's been discussion for at least a week, and there
are no objections, and it is covered under the charter, then it
is adopted.
...is it an ongoing community draft (such as a registry), then
it will just keep going until it is closed after a period of
inactivity.
...the other type is a finite work project. It will be closed
either when completed or after inactivity.
...ongoing community drafts (like registries) and community
report drafts (like specific docs).
...conformance test suite is another type of ongoing project.
...community reports drafts have several subtypes. A draft spec
(e.g., DID spec), a community note (e.g., DID Primer).
...notes would not go on to a WG but a spec might.
...moving to 20,000 foot view
...within those two types of projects, what is their process.
...there is a well-known process for community notes as shown
in the doc
...rough draft, unreleased draft, release draft (when the
editors tag a release in the repo), final release draft
...any of these can exit early
...giving some examples as of May 29 2019
...DID method registry -- intended to be an ongoing thing
...DID Primer is a community note. Currently in an unreleased
phase.
...further along in the process is the DID spec—a community
draft
Christopher Allen: The DID spec is a published draft
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Hopes this diagram helps clarify these
things
...particularly if we add links to the deeper parts
...this is still a lot to know. Hopefully this is only needed
by some people, such as chairs.
...It is designed to help broaden inclusion and identify areas
where we can make it easier
...in the community report draft stage, it moves into another
stage when it moves to github
...for other types of community reports, it's been fairly
natural for a lot of the iteration to happen in less technical
tools like Google docs
...that would make it easier and more accessible
Drummond Reed: +1 To enable as much work in Google docs (or the
equivalent) as possible
Dmitiz: Asks about a subprocess for something in a registry, such
as the did:web: method.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: That might be a community report
...it depends on how the registries deal with it
Christopher Allen: There are 2 issues here. One is the registry
change.
...so the first one is just acceptance in the registry.
...then the second question is whether the particular DID
method will be a CCG work item.
...if not, it would be in a separate non-CCG repo. But if it's
going to be a CCG work item, then it goes through the process.
Dmitri Zagidulin: For specs that want to be part of the CCG
umbrella—that want a spec and repo under CCG—they go through the
community report side of the workflow.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: The chairs will be coaching some new items
through the process.
Manu Sporny: We have heard enough people complain that the
github process is exclusionary—and even the tech spec have large
swaths that are just text...
Kim Hamilton Duffy:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/76
...so anything we can do to transition the editing cycle to
Google docs or similar for as long as possible before the final
stage, it will help gain more input.
...this is something we should probably work on
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I have good news on that
...we could really use help polishing off that tool chain
...it will have a very positive impact
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Bill Barnhill has been looking into that
...this is absolutely one of the critical pieces to help make
the process more inclusive
Christopher Allen: Until the tooling is better, there's nothing
that prevents a work item from going from unreleased to final
report quickly, i.e., from a Google doc into the final Respec
form in a repo.
...that process could happen in a week, and have a version
number attached, and it gets published.
...the final step of turning it into an official report might
take a little longer.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Thanks for calling that out.
...that early stage can work in another form like Google doc
and the team can get paired with someone who knows github.
...in the following weeks we are going through work item repair
(but we won't get to them today)
Bill Barnhill: I’ll report on issue 76 next week.
Amy Guy: +1 TallTed !!
Ted Thibodeau: Is frustrated with the way the discussion is
going. Surprised that this group is advocating Google docs as a
tool.
...also, Google docs does not have a good way of doing document
comparison.
...wiki space is available on both W3C servers and github
servers, and offer features that are not in Google docs.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Acknowledged that "Google docs" has just
been a placeholder for "another easier collaboration tool than
github".
Jonathan Holt: Is this helpful?:
https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/ReSpec-Editor's-Guide
...invites anyone else to suggest a tool.
Joe Andrieu: Yes, thank you, Jonathan
Joe Andrieu: We should put that in the process
Manu Sporny: Has the same issues with putting everything in
Google. Suggests we just look at an editor as a tool, and
suggests that we export as often as every day.
Ted Thibodeau: Export to....?
...a second point is that we're using Github which is now owned
by Microsoft.
Ted Thibodeau: Github == Microsoft, yes ...
Ted Thibodeau: W3 wiki ?
...the goal is to find an easier way for people to contribute.
...so there are ways to solve this.
...unfortunately W3C wiki has not been very easy for many
people.
Ted Thibodeau: You have to jump through "some hoops".
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Must close the call due to time.
Heather Vescent: Commenting here, that github is not user
friendly for non-technical people, which is a major problem re:
inclusion. Not sure I understand why google docs is a problem.
Haven't seen that detailed in the notes. (Am not on phone)
Ted Thibodeau: Heathervescent - most significantly, change
tracking/viewing has been a major challenge in past work on
Gdocs. (That may have improved; Gdocs *is* a constantly moving
A-B-testing target.)
Amy Guy: I think we're significantly less 'locked in' to
github/microsoft since we own the underlying data through git
Dmitri Zagidulin: I'd be happy to find a non-google-doc
alternative that has a good annotation / sidebar comments
functionality
Amy Guy: If google decided to take away all our docs overnight,
even if we had exported them, we can't reconstruct that
environment
Amy Guy: Ugh yes dmitriz I agree, need to see how nextcloud is
doing
Heather Vescent: @Tallted, if you use suggest changes, it makes
it super easy to collaborate with many people
Ted Thibodeau: Heathervescent (others) - Can you pick two
arbitrary versions to compare? (This has been a key feature of
wiki-based work in the past, both for reverting changes and for
saying "you're doing great at this, can you do more?")
Ted Thibodeau: Yes, google docs lets you do that [scribe assist
by Dmitri Zagidulin]
Heather Vescent: TallTed - not sure. I tend to do collaboration
with the parties directly. There is less need to reconcile
versions because everyone is always "on the same page"
Dmitri Zagidulin: View revision history, and pick two arbitrary
versions
Heather Vescent: Vs editing MS word asyncronously.
Amy Guy: Personally I'd be grumpy about being required to blanket
agree to Google's terms of service in order to contribute to
anythiing
Dmitri Zagidulin: Or wait.. possibly that feature was removed...
Heather Vescent: I think it comes down to level of comfort. As a
writer, I am power user for Google Docs. The other writing tools
I use are not collaborative. Github makes me super cranky when
people try to make it fit with writing. It is not a writing tool
and no real author would ever use github to author anything.
Ted Thibodeau: Dmitriz - "revision history" is dimmed on the file
menu for the doc we were just viewing ... which may be because
I'm a suggester, not an editor... or may be because Google is
playing A-B games ... or may be because they broke something, or
took it away.
Dmitri Zagidulin: Yeah, could be a permission thing
Dmitri Zagidulin: Anyways though, I think we just need to draw up
a list of required features for an alternative.
Dmitri Zagidulin: And see if any other sw supports it
Benjamin Young: Maybe try http://prose.io/ or similar
Ted Thibodeau: A code manager is challenging for prose
management. Wikis are often better
https://help.github.com/en/articles/about-wikis
Ted Thibodeau: Heathervescent - *live* collaboration is a
different ballgame, to me. Asynch collaboration is far more
typical, and (in my experience) far easier when working with
larger groups -- because while you're all on the same scroll, Joe
may be on "page" 12, while you're on "page" 27, and I'm on "page"
53 -- and each of us may be making contradictory edits to those
areas.
Ted Thibodeau: The "live save" model means that each word-level
or even character-level change is a version -- and you can have
interspersed edits by each of those users -- so comparisons are
even harder to figure out.
Ted Thibodeau: This is another reason why wiki page-save or git
pull-request changes are better in larger, more asynchronous
group efforts.
Amy Guy: From my reading of the google ToS
(https://tosdr.org/#google) google has a right to use any content
we provide for promotion of google services, use it in any google
product other than the one you upload it to for other reasons
that what you provided it for, and the license continues even
after you stop using the service
Amy Guy: Hopefully they don't find a way to use DID stuff to
promote google services though ;)
Ted Thibodeau: Just wait for the new G-DIDs "10% project" to
surface...
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2019 04:30:47 UTC