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

Re: Attempts to block work (was: Re: VC HTTP Authorization Conversation)

From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:45:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN8C-_+eTxoDzs235uYqeR770=TL5TD4dwLV8OCQz6-cKT_puQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Adrian,

Nobody can stop GNAP from being worked on, only you.... can *please* stop
asking every DIF / ToIP / W3C / OIDF working group to help fix it :)

Since it already has its own dedicated working group here:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol

and its own dedicated mailing list here:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth

I'm not sure why we need every possibly related conversation to be an
advertisement for the fact that GNAP needs more contributors...

Certainly that is the message I am getting.

Current contributor counts here:
- https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-resource-servers/graphs/contributors
(2)
- https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/graphs/contributors (9)

Time spent on standards and in working group calls costs money... and is an
investment, one which you / GNAP / GNAP contributors are not entitled to
receive in unlimited amounts from every person who attempts to attend
working group calls in the W3C, DIF, ToIP, OIDF or really anywhere other
than IETF-GNAP-WG....

You have asked for $1 here, $3.50 there... At a certain point, if you
persist, you are an @type of GnapPanHandler2021 ; )

Obstructing working groups composed of members who could potentially help
GNAP grow seems a terrible strategy for growing contributors.

https://youtu.be/GEl8IBv98vg?t=228 (GNAP humor to diffuse tension /
frustration)

Smurf jokes aside, I hope IETF-GNAP-WG gets more contributors and matures
quickly, and I have nothing against the wg or spec...

Since concrete proposals were requested, here are some to consider:

OS.PROP.0: The W3C CCG VC-HTTPI-API WG and IETF-GNAP-WG agree to joint IPR
protected development of the GNAP specification  (this is what you appear
to be insisting on)
OS.PROP.1: The W3C CCG VC-HTTPI-API DRAFT recommends using IETF-GNAP-DRAFT.
OS.PROP.2: The W3C CCG VC-HTTPI-API DRAFT does not mention IETF-GNAP-DRAFT.
OS.PROP.3: The W3C CCG VC-HTTPI-API DRAFT recommends not using
IETF-GNAP-DRAFT
OS.PROP.4: The W3C CCG VC-HTTPI-API DRAFT forbids using IETF-GNAP-DRAFT.

OS






On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 1:53 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
wrote:

> To keep things in @context, I’m not trying to block work on OAuth2. I’m
> asking for GNAP to be done simultaneously.
>
> - Adrian
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 1:00 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/21 11:00 AM, Adrian Gropper wrote:
>> > I indeed am attempting to block work on VC-related protocols until "we"
>> as
>> > a community deal openly with this issue
>>
>> Given the number of concerns I'm getting related to the "I indeed am
>> attempting to block work" statement above, let me try and clarify why
>> that is
>> not a useful strategy in communities that follow standards-body process,
>> like
>> this one. Please take a moment to read about how W3C determines consensus:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#Consensus
>>
>> As you can imagine, W3C has a process to deal with individuals that
>> attempt to
>> block work. That process is described in detail above and is very
>> effective at
>> 1) ensuring that everyone is able to have their point of view considered,
>> 2)
>> provide concrete proposals to be considered, and finally 3) make
>> decisions and
>> move on.
>>
>> We are doing #1 and #2 above right now, and we will get to #3 very soon
>> now.
>>
>> I suggest that people involved in the discussion 1) spend their time
>> attempting to clearly lay out their position, and 2) put concrete
>> proposals
>> forward that will result in the least amount of dissent.
>>
>> Attempting to block work without proposing workable concrete
>> counter-proposals
>> will not be tolerated and will be dealt with accordingly.
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> --
>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
>> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>>
>>
>>

-- 
*ORIE STEELE*
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://www.transmute.industries>
Received on Friday, 11 June 2021 20:47:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 11 June 2021 20:47:18 UTC