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

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

From: Brian Richter <brian@aviary.tech>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:12:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPUZd8um306EiyJ-Gm9sAKDcMQhqg=PdVhFiZYArz+9Et6YtuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Cc: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Ok I'll speak up. I've heard references to UMA many times now and have no
idea what it is or where to find out more. At least with GNAP a google
search returns relevant results. UMA comes back with uma thurman and a defi
crypto token I doubt you're referring to..

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:09 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
wrote:

> 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 21:15:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 11 June 2021 21:15:56 UTC