W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > January 2022

Re: Ideals meet Implementations - Blockchains, NFTs, Decentralization, Oh My!

From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:17:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CANYRo8hnz9w1D3Aibt3GqAQw-wkN1EFy4DR0Uk_TL+SoSFFCWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Manu, thank you for the blunt response and your focused suggestion. I also
thank Anil and the others that have contributed to this thread.

I hear you and I will keep my CCG comments to this thread as I try to find
a co-lead and write something as Manu is suggesting. I will work hard to
avoid introducing this issue into other discussions on CCG. In VC-API, I
will stick with the authorization/delegation related Issues and avoid
discussing human rights or burdens except in the context of specific issues.

This thread is specific to the broad decentralization issues raised by
https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html so I hope it
continues to the extent any of the 450+ people in CCG find it useful.

In an attempt to name and scope a CCG Work Item, I would point to two
relevant calls today. ToIP discussed the relationship between KERI (and
did:peer) as it relates to DIDComm. The notes are superb:
https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/2022-01-20+TATF+Meeting+Notes My
takeaway, as it relates to this thread, is that the reputation associated
with an identifier needs to be handled at a different layer from the
messaging associated with the identifier. Although the meeting ended
without a conclusion, I urge everyone in CCG to listen or at least read the
notes whether you have a direct interest in ToIP or not. That is
particularly important for Anil and others that hope to regulate the
interaction between non-repudiable (as in, for example, biometric)
identities and pseudonymous identifiers as they are used in CCG-related
protocols.

The other relevant call today was a GNAP interim meeting where Dmitri
Zagidulin presented on the applicability of the GNAP interaction model to
VC-API.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1fCUvUHo_x34rHfjvd4YSMcnuSqM-94V-ds_V7Lyc-Sc/edit#slide=id.p
The minutes will be posted here
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/gnap/meetings/ This conversation is exactly
what I have been hoping for, as it makes explicit support for delegation of
access to a VC and the  privacy considerations for requests that might
include a VC and/or result in access to a VC.

So, this reply is not yet a formal work item proposal but if anyone thinks
there's a relationship between Moxie's delegation to servers perspective,
KERI's clarification of reputation relative to messaging, and the way GNAP
handles requests to an authorization server, then we're making progress.

And yes, I do apologize to all for my circuitous path on the way to being
able to reference specific technical concerns that are hopefully relevant
to CCG.

Adrian

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 10:54 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> Adrian, I'm going to try and speak directly below. It might come off as
> rude,
> but that's not my intent.
>
> The responses to your questions on the mailing list from others have gone
> out
> of their way to be polite in their framing. Since I've worked with you for
> going on five years now, having met you in person and shared a number of
> nice
> meals and conversation, I'm going to take the approach of being politely
> blunt. There was a time where your input was helpful, but it has
> degenerated
> into commentary that is largely unhelpful over the past year or so. You
> have
> been harming your cause by continuing to engage in the way that you are and
> people are starting to increasingly ignore your input.
>
> I'm saying this because I respect your time and the time of everyone else
> that
> is responding to you.
>
> On 1/18/22 9:50 PM, Adrian Gropper wrote:
> > CCG rules require two leads for the work item. Ideally, the two people
> > structuring the work item should both represent implementers and I could
> > continue to play my advisor role.
>
> Adrian, you need to step up and become ONE of the co-leads for the work
> item.
> You can't continue to insist that other people do the work that you want
> done.
>
> The best work items tend to have ONE technical lead and ONE non-technical
> lead. My suggestion to you is to find a technical lead to help you with the
> work item, while taking lead.
>
> > If there aren't two separate people in CCG that are concerned about the
> > burdens of standardized digital credentials and/or the relationship to
> > biometrics in DIDs and VCs, then pushing a work item seems pointless.
>
> There are 450+ people in this community group. You are not the only one
> that
> cares about the things that you do.
>
> This has been repeatedly stated to you, but it does not seem to be sinking
> in.
> There's a certain amount of social unawareness at play here that is
> frustrating to many of us, as well as you, I'm sure.
>
> I know others are deeply concerned about "the burdens of standardized
> digital
> credentials on those that hold them" and "the relationship to biometrics in
> DIDs and VCs". I know I am and I've spoken with others that have the same
> concerns, but your continued insistence that this is not a priority for
> everyone but you pushes people to not want to work with you. That you keep
> asking vague questions and citing passages in United Nations documents that
> have tenuous links to the vague questions you're asking are not helping
> make
> your case.
>
> A number of us have had one-on-one conversations w/ you and continue to
> try to
> guide your input in a positive direction. You have been reminded, multiple
> times, on calls to find a way to contribute in a way that is positive and
> at
> least to stop derailing conversations that have nothing to do with
> delegation
> or "digital slavery" or GNAP or biometrics or "digital burdens".
>
> Please step up, Adrian, and write something that you can get others on the
> mailing list to rally behind. Until you do that, your pleas for others to
> care
> as much about this stuff as you do will continue to result in nothing
> actionable and wasted effort on everyone's part, including yours.
>
> -- 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/
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2022 18:17:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:28 UTC