> and how the CCG ought to lead out in requiring credentials of its human and AI members. Daniel, I think about this part every day. And my suspicion is -- the inability of our CCG to do that rests in a lack of infrastructure resources. (We'll put aside the other major obstacle, which is - folks are very rightly concerned that there will be a big fight about the exact credential serializations and protocols.) As it is, key community group infrastructure (like meeting auto-scribe models) has been maintained by single companies or even single individual volunteers, at their own expense. And something like the ability to have human and AI membership credentials -- and I agree that it's CRUCIAL for any kind of standards groups -- will require some basic infrastructure. Not a lot (some server space, a domain or two). And even more importantly, institutional buy-in to stand behind it. "Yes, this is the list of anchoring identity registries we're keeping an eye on, etc" I don't know what can be done about that. Part of me is tempted to informally pass around the hat, among CG membership, a minimal voluntary membership donation, to set up this infrastructure. Another part knows that this is really in the realm of the standards body itself, that W3C should provide it for all their CGs. And I don't have enough institutional process knowledge of how to make this happen. But just wanted to flag that your statement really resonated with me. >
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2026 17:08:42 UTC