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

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>
>>
>