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

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

From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 17:02:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CANYRo8g2DByada9_ps2C71AK9HbVJLFCJx9n1tAPpCyjjrBeFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
The privacy issue I’m raising can be handled with UMA.

- Adrian

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 4:46 PM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
wrote:

> 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 21:03:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 11 June 2021 21:04:09 UTC