- From: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 07:18:47 -0500
- To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
- Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>, Steve Magennis <steve.e.magennis@gmail.com>, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>, Justin P Richer <jricher@mit.edu>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGJKSNTjULu3mUqZ6vSTYcjrrRPAVPQXXmdqEW1fv-kiN-EF-g@mail.gmail.com>
Adrian, Putting chair hat on to clarify a few things. > The chairs control the agenda > No. This is a public mailing list. The chairs typically do set weekly meeting agendas, based on work items and issues driven by the community, general community input and requests, etc as well as my participation in CCG, > No. This is an open CG that participants self nominate (or are nominated by their organization) for in the sense that I will leave the group if requested. > I am sure at some point, folks have been asked to leave a community group. In the CCG I could not see this occuring except for violation of the CEPC or other binding principles/agreements (such as IPR). The CCG has and continues to go out of its way to encourage broad public participation. This is not a helpful attitude to take, not the first time you have taken it. Please stop. > I'm doing the best I can in my role. The chairs control the agenda > over discussion of the "dual use" aspects of our protocol work. > A chair (myself) suggested splitting threads on GNAP as a technical item potentially related to CCG work items, from the broader questions around ethical implications of technology so that things don't get lost in the mix by have these two topics intertwined. This was guidance on how to keep the conversation going in a productive manner since some folks have an interest in one or the other topic, none, or both. I SUGGESTED this split because they are two separate topics. Mixing the two can cause issues. I noted that there is some opposition to GNAP *at this time* as many members of the community have voiced a desire to focus on AuthNZ that is widely deployed *for now* in pre standard work until GNAP gets further along. Basically the concern I have is that that opposition may cause a lack of engagement on the higher level topic. GNAP, DIDs and VCs will succeed regardless. > I sincerely hope so. VCs are clearly a thing and are seeing increased adoption, and have gone through the standards process at W3C, though there is (as always) still work to be done. DIDs are going the the FOs right now, and as a member of that working group, I hope they are adopted, a recharter occurs, and that they will continue to improve. GNAP looks cool. It is also an IETF item, not a W3C one, and individuals working on that item have commented on its status there (I believe you are also working on that item). Chair hat off. As Orie asked in starting this thread: "Has there yet been discussion on what some kind of OIDC built on GNAP instead of OAuth would look like?." And what has been the level of engagement between you and others involved in GNAP with FedID? Maybe the answer to those two items got lost in the mix, and the conversation evolved to one of just the ethics question. I am not sure at this point. This is one of the reasons I suggested we be careful and separate meta and broader level questions and answers, from those related to specific tech.
Received on Monday, 10 January 2022 12:19:20 UTC