Re: Deployment, Deployment, Deployment! was: X509 and Verificable Creds: A Quick Note on WebID history - Re: All the Agents Challenge (ATAC) at ISWC 2021

"Vaccine Passports" & QRcode "check-in" requirements are essential WebIDs.

In 2013
"credentials" didn't exist, and due to historical problems this emergence
of "identity credentials" vs. "WebID" was a problem, arguably still is.

I suggest the definition of WebID be updated to support these new URIs
otherwise suggested to denote a "datasubject", which may infer a migration
ontologically from foaf to schemaorg.

Also, when trying to talk online about the very serious implications of
mandatory domestic Vaccinepassports for persons who seek not to be
economically locked out of societal participation,

#WebID is easier to say than #DigitalIdentity.

Timothy Holborn.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2021, 7:35 pm Melvin Carvalho, <>

> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 21:04, Gregg Kellogg <>
> wrote:
>> Note that the W3C has a process document that governs Community Groups
>> [1]. The relevant section says the following:
>> > Each Community Group must have at least one Chair who is responsible
>> for ensuring the group fulfills the requirements of this document as well
>> as the group’s operational agreements. The participants of the Group choose
>> their Chair(s). The Chair(s) are also the primary contacts for the
>> Community Development Lead.
>> Two things that may be a way forward is for the group members to select a
>> second (or third) chair. The reason for multiple chairs is to deal with
>> potentially split responsibilities or unavailability (true for WGs, too).
>> It might make sense for the WebID and RWW groups to have some chairs in
>> common.
>> Also implicit in this paragraph is that the group chooses the chair(s),
>> which is not limited to group creation. This is handled through the CG UI
>> when there is no chair, but it seems clear to me that the group members can
>> add or remove chairs by choosing to at any time by voting. This may require
>> some staff clarification and to facilitate actually updating the group
>> settings.
> Hi Gregg
> Thanks for pointing out the W3C process document, and the text that states
> that the participants of the group choose the chair.
> I think that's as it should be, though it doesnt always happen in CGs.
> Speaking just for the RWW CG.  We do select chairs as a group, via the
> mailing list.  For a few years Andrei was co-chair of our group.  He was a
> great success, co-founding Solid, writing the first Solid spec and leading
> the project for most of the first years.  He's moved on to other things
> now, but we'd welcome a second (or third) chair in the RWW group.  Someone
> interested in using or creating standards to read and write to the web.
> As you state, it might also make sense for RWW and WebID to have a chair
> in common, and share the work load
> PS not sure if you're retired now, but I think I speak for everyone when I
> say, you'd make an excellent chair! :)
>> Gregg Kellogg
>> [1]
>> > On Aug 10, 2021, at 11:43 AM, bergi <> wrote:
>> >
>> > Am 10.08.21 um 14:37 schrieb Henry Story:
>> >>> On 10. Aug 2021, at 13:29, bergi <> wrote:
>> >>> Am 10.08.21 um 07:29 schrieb Henry Story:
>> >>>>> On 10. Aug 2021, at 00:52, bergi <> wrote:
>> >>>>> Am 09.08.21 um 18:32 schrieb Henry Story:
>> >>>>>>> On 9. Aug 2021, at 17:34, bergi <> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Am 27.07.21 um 20:07 schrieb Melvin Carvalho:
>> >>>>>>>> I'm hearing that you dont have time/resources to take WebID
>> >>>>>>>> any further So, would you step down as chair of the the WebID
>> >>>>>>>> community group at let others, perhaps a community effort, to
>> >>>>>>>> modernize it
>> >>>>>>> I strongly support that. Not leaving any comment on a proposal
>> >>>>>>> like that is even more an argument to look for another chair
>> >>>>>>> who can contribute more time for the group.
>> >>>> Btw. what is the proposal that is being talked about?
>> >>>
>> >>> The proposal is that you step down as a chair.
>> >> Ah so your problem was that I did not leave a comment on a proposal
>> >> on a different mailing list to remove me as a chair? And that
>> >> is a reason to step down?
>> >
>> > Ignoring the other arguments makes them disappear? But ok, I expect a
>> chair to moderate the group and encourage people to participate. You
>> participated in the discussion on the RWW mailing list, and you brought up
>> the lack of time you can spend on the chair role, and you were personally
>> listed as a recipient on the mentioned mail. You can't encourage people
>> with the absence of the chair.
>> >
>> >>>> and that is why we opened a github repository to make just such
>> changes. You can even leave issues there.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's not about what I want to change. It's about why should one
>> >>> contribute to the WebID group if:
>> >>>
>> >>> - the chair has no time to fulfill the role as chair
>> >>> - the chair claims there is nothing to do
>> >> It is about what it makes sense to change. If you have no
>> >> real change proposals then what is the fuss about?
>> >
>> > I hoped you would have insight after reading my last mail. Since it
>> doesn't seem to be the case, let me be more clear: You were never able to
>> distinguish between your role as member and chair. You treated WebID like
>> your personal project. Anyone who disagreed with you was, from your point
>> of view, wrong. Melvin framed it maybe too friendly in this [1] mail how
>> you behaved to Manu Sporny. Multiple people left the group after not being
>> able to discuss things with you. Once in a WebID call, someone described
>> your behavior as a dictator instead of a chair. I agree with that. So how
>> do you want to moderate the group and encourage people to participate when
>> >
>> > - you don't have time
>> > - people have to rely on your goodwill
>> >
>> > Stepping down is the only option if you want contributions beyond an
>> echo chamber. Otherwise, we should mark the group as abandoned as proposed
>> in this [2] mail, or as I would call it: Taken hostage.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > [2]

Received on Thursday, 9 September 2021 06:20:23 UTC