Re: LLMs and Agents usage in the CCG

Great thread, and I appreciate Mahmoud and the chairs for facilitating this
proactively. I want to build on what Daniel and Dmitri are raising as I
think there are a few important points underneath the surface-level policy
question.

The real issue isn't whether agents participate, but whether we can
maintain accountability, provenance, and trust when they do. And that's a
problem this community is arguably more qualified to address than almost
any other group. The CCG has spent over a decade building the conceptual
and technical foundations for exactly this kind of challenge (verifiable
claims, delegation, HiTL trust chains). The question of *"who said this, on
whose authority, and can I verify it?"* is what this group does/has always
done.

Dmitri's point about infra resonates. The gap between what we know needs to
exist and what actually exists today is very real. It's not a theoretical
gap, but one of resources and institutional commitment. Like many here, we
work in this space every day: building open, standards-aligned credential
infrastructure that can make things like verifiable delegation, accountable
AI participation, and human-anchored trust practically possible, not just
conceptually sound. We'd welcome the opportunity to inform or support the
CCG in standing up that kind of infra if there's appetite for it.

One other non-trivial dimension to flag: the CCG's archive (a decade+ of
meeting transcripts, mailing list threads, spec work, etc.) represents an
extraordinary knowledge base. If/when responsible AI tooling is applied to
standards work, the quality and integrity of that contextual foundation
matters A LOT. A well-structured, verifiable archive paired with
responsible AI could meaningfully lower barriers to participation and
institutional memory. Done poorly or without the trust scaffolding this
group knows how to build, it just produces over-confident noise. Imho, that
distinction is exactly why the CCG should lead this conversation, not just
react to it.

On the immediate policy question: Option 2 seems like the most pragmatic
starting point, with the addition of Melvin's point about branch protection
and review processes. Disclosure + human accountability ftw. Seems a good
opportunity to dog-food our own work and use the credential and delegation
models we've been developing to lead and solve this problem for ourselves
first.

On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 11:10 AM Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >  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.
>
>>