W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > August 2021

Re: Request for CCG Chair Intervention in CCG Process

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 15:46:54 -0400
To: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a12cf52d-835d-51c8-6f98-c8cfb084ff8d@digitalbazaar.com>
On 8/21/21 3:25 PM, Orie Steele wrote:
> I would be happy to have the chairs overrule either side of the argument
> at this point.

IIUC, that's not going to happen at this point (which is the right call, IMHO):


I believe the CCG Chairs have been very clear that they're expecting the VC
HTTP API Editors to:

1. Strike the GNAP-KBAT resolution.

2. If there are further objections on the other
   resolutions, work it out in the VC HTTP API group using
   the new process, recording a decision with dissent if

3. If there is dissent, escalate using the new process
   for a final decision.

Chairs, please correct me if I got any of that wrong.

> As Adrian points out, there was not unanimous consensus on them.

Unanimity isn't required for consensus:


That's not the question at hand. The question is -- who is raising a formal
objection to which proposals? There were four proposals left, Adrian is just
objecting to two of them. Which ones are you objecting to, if any?

Orie, please respond to this:


... and I would love to hear your thoughts on this as a path forward:


-- manu

Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
Received on Saturday, 21 August 2021 19:47:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:21 UTC