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

Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 10:33:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMBN2CTUMc88dDH62zOM9nfcG=ZM3U-DCwuSj7cHcVuUjA5GGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 2:19 AM Kristina Yasuda
<Kristina.Yasuda@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I think I succeeded in illustrating that casting doubt upon the motivations of the companies and individuals is not constructive and could have a negative impact on a WG’s culture.

I'm having a hard time following your logic. You seem to be saying
that you succeeded in doing this by knowingly asserting a falsehood[1]
against the collective work of individuals in the CCG and the VC-API?

> I know it has not been only Digital Bazaar working on VC-API documentation.

Then why did you, as a co-Chair of the VCWG (and a spec author for the
OID4 work), go on record and mischaracterise[1] the VC-API
specification as the work of a single entity?

That sort of behavior, from a W3C VCWG co-Chair, is exceedingly problematic.

> The decision regarding the publication of VC-API should and will follow the W3C process, the VC WG charter and VC WG agreement reached

On that we agree. Looks like Ivan, the W3C Staff Contact for the VCWG,
believes that we're within our charter and W3C Process to publish the
document via the VCWG as a Draft Note. Let's see what the W3C Process
team has to say on the matter.

-- manu


Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
Received on Sunday, 20 November 2022 15:34:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 20 November 2022 15:34:14 UTC