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

RE: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

From: <nadalin@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 08:35:33 -0800
To: "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'W3C Credentials CG'" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Cc: "'Edebiri, Charles'" <charles.edebiri@cgi.com>, "'Steve Capell'" <steve.capell@gmail.com>, "'David Chadwick'" <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <097301d8fdc7$48354700$d89fd500$@prodigy.net>
The other choice is to form a new WG if you have 17 implementations that should not be an issue as this WG already has a lot to deal with and as we see with the context issue very different views that take a lot of time and effort to resolve. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> 
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 8:04 AM
To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Cc: Edebiri, Charles <charles.edebiri@cgi.com>; Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com>; David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 12:40 PM Edebiri, Charles <charles.edebiri@cgi.com> wrote:
> Regardless of how you feel about the VC API work, Manu Sporny is an incredible leader and I want to thank him for his leadership and contributions to the VC movement.

David Chadwick wrote:
> +1

Thank you, Charles and David, that's very kind of both of you. :)

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 1:41 AM Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Manu’s contribution is invaluable and (even though he sometimes tells me I don’t know what I’m talking about), I have no doubt whatever of his motivations - which always seem to be about doing the right thing.

You only don't know what you're talking about when you're wrong, Steve! :P -- the rest of the time (which is almost all of the time) you're right on point! :) ... joking aside... I'm regularly impressed with your thinking and writing... thank you, for the kind words... I will try to live up to them even though I failed to do so over the weekend. Onwards!

Yes, most of us are trying to do the right thing here. The reality of the situation is:

1) We now have 17 implementations of VC API, largely thanks to the JFF Plugfest #2, and that has taken us by surprise (in a good way). A standards WG, and standards organization in general, needs to reflect the reality of the market... that's what W3C failed to do during the dark days of XHML2 vs. HTML5... (and kept insisting that HTML5 wasn't a thing, and even if it was a thing, the HTML Charter didn't allow for it to be published). It would be good to avoid that mistake again.

2) Some of us insisted on the VCWG charter text being what it is so that we could publish some non-normative form of VC API (that's why it is directly linked to as a document that could be published in the charter). Perhaps a W3C Note is the less ideal path, and as it was suggested in the thread, an Editor's Draft is a better path.

3) The VC charter took almost an extra year to put in place because we were waiting on the DID Core formal objections to be resolved, and by that time, the Charter didn't reflect the progress made on the VC API protocol... and it certainly doesn't reflect item #1 above.

4) The old process 2010-2020 allowed you to publish Notes with normative content[1] -- VCWG has done this with lower-cased normative language in the VC Implementation Guide[2] and the W3C Technical Architecture group has done this with their equivalent of a Note such as the EWP[3]. The new W3C Process 2021 is a bit more vague[4] on this path, but one reading is that you can't do this anymore (while another is that a WG can publish anything a subset of them wants to publish -- you don't need full WG consensus to the contents of Notes or Editors Drafts to publish them). Kyle's approach might work as well but fails to provide any sort of real guidance other than "these things exist".

5) A rechartering process at this point in time could be called for, but that could take up to a year (further delaying reflecting the realities of implementations) and might result in more formal objections -- but so far, I'm not hearing anyone would object to that path. Given that the market is deploying VC API, it probably makes sense to start the process in parallel and put VC API in scope, as Torsten and Tobias have suggested.

Just some thoughts... keep the comments coming so we have multiple options to consider in the VCWG on the next step for VC API.

-- 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 Monday, 21 November 2022 16:35:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 21 November 2022 16:35:55 UTC