Re: EXTERNAL: DID Method Rubric v1.0 available for review

I don't normally make it to the WG meetings in person but wanted to express a +1 to seeing this note being formally considered (and accepted) by the WG.

-Kyle
________________________________
From: Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 2:56 AM
To: W3C DID Working Group <public-did-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@sicpa.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: DID Method Rubric v1.0 available for review

Howdy folks,

The DID Method Rubric v1.0 is now available for review at https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/

The static html file for consideration is at
https://github.com/w3c/did-rubric/blob/main/FPWD/2021-08-26/index.html

There are a few blemishes Daniel Hardman and I will be fixing, but this is ready for formal consideration by the work group.

One important note:
The editors believe that we still have a long way to go to best understand the criteria that are most useful for evaluating DID Methods. We are proud of the work-to-date creating a tool that helps onboard people to the benefits of DID. However, this technology is ridiculously young and there is still much to be learned.

One wrinkle we'd like to address is an unfortunate bias in the current Rubric to the six methods that happened to be used as examples throughout the original RWOT paper. We'd like to see this balanced out with appropriate examples from a larger population of DID Methods. We've asked for input from every DID Method registered, but the process has not yielded much traction.

Another is the evaluation coverage and citation of evaluators. Every DID Method evaluation is biased. As such, it is imperative that evaluations be identified by author, date, and funding sources (if any) so that future readers can consider such biases when weighing the merits of the evaluation. Doing this in a manner that also makes it easy for contributors to submit PRs is a bit tricky. We'd like to get that process in place so proper attribution is concise yet accurate.

Finally, we know of at least three more complete DID Method evaluations coming down the pike that will lead to several proposed new criteria as well as add plenty of examples from new DID Methods (not the "original 6"). These will likely go through the current editorial process for inclusion (and such additions would be covered by the Maintenance charter).

Because of these factors, we will be proposing that the DID Method Rubric transition to a registry, with well formed rules so that substantive updates (to structured data "in the registry") may be made by simple PRs, with an eventual option of becoming a formal W3C Registry when that mechanism is ready.

Look for a formal proposal in the form of a PR with the proposed rules in the imminent future. The devil is in the details, so we are working to present those details for consideration as soon as possible.

In the meantime, if you have any concerns about the Rubric transitioning to a registry, please speak up. The sooner we can address such concerns, the better.

Cheers,

-j

--
Joe Andrieu, PMP                                                                              joe@legreq.com<mailto:joe@legreq.com>
LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS                                                        +1(805)705-8651
Do what matters.                                                                            http://legreq.com<http://www.legendaryrequirements.com>