Connected or P2P Was: Please vote to approve/disapprove the new charter

It’s not about HTTP, per se. I feel like we need to do the connected case
before we tackle the P2P without a network connection. Or maybe we should
just clarify our terminology and work on the two in parallel in separate
groups.

- Adrian

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:32 AM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>
wrote:

> Should we understand by this that presenting credentials via QR code, via
> BlueTooth/NFC, via sneakernet, and so forth is out of scope?
>
> The charter language describes scope using these phrases:
>
> "Our tasks include drafting and incubating Internet specifications"
> "In general, the topics that are “out of scope” involve anything not
> directly related to enabling interoperable credentials on the Web."
>
>
> Part of the source of friction between Hyperledger Indy/Aries and the CCG
> is the CCG's insistence on a web focus, where the HL world has always
> wanted a broader remit. When the CCG announced issuer and verifier API
> initiatives, it was with a web mindset, despite my pleadings to think
> broader than HTTP. Etc. Perhaps this is unavoidable, given the CCG's parent
> org?
>
> I am happy to vote in favor of the current charter; I just felt it was
> worth pointing out that the language perpetuates an assumption about
> narrowness of approach, and that the CCG shouldn't be upset if people go
> elsewhere to be broad.
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:05 PM Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>> Following up on Tuesday's CCG call, the chairs proposed we adopt the new
>> charter and updates process
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15_7noTaKsqN-TBR7VgECpy-H-zS05rNds81GyRw95jE/edit#heading=h.9fyeyfch5770>.
>> This must be adopted following the process in the current charter, which
>> requires a 30-day voting period and 2/3 of votes cast signaling approval[1]
>>
>> *Action requested*: We request that you signal your approval/disapproval
>> by responding to this email with "approve" or "disapprove", and then feel
>> free to promptly mute this thread, which may get noisy.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kim on behalf of chairs
>>
>> [1] see "Amendments to this Charter"
>> https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter-20140808/. Relevant
>> excerpt:
>>
>> The group can decide to work on a proposed amended charter, editing the
>> text using the Decision Process described above. The decision on whether to
>> adopt the amended charter is made by conducting a 30-day vote on the
>> proposed new charter. The new charter, if approved, takes effect on either
>> the proposed date in the charter itself, or 7 days after the result of the
>> election is announced, whichever is later. A new charter must receive 2/3
>> of the votes cast in the approval vote to pass. The group may make simple
>> corrections to the charter such as deliverable dates by the simpler group
>> decision process rather than this charter amendment process.
>>
>