Re: VC-JWT FPWD

The document has not changed since the PR that restructured sections for
readability.

And that PR was open for more than a week.

Manu's change request on it asked for issues, which I filed, for further
discussion.

There were no other change requests on it.

I expect there will continue to be work done on the document, given FPWD
signals our intent to do work on the document.

The working group has indeed resolved to do FPWD, and I had confirmed on
the last call, that there were no continued objections to that consensus
call.

As a general point, I think the assumption is that all documents that have
gone to FPWD are getting reviewed continuously by the group, given the
sheer number of documents and the engagement I have seen on PRs, I am not
sure that is really happening.

I think this is indeed troubling, and perhaps we have over committed an
under resourced working group.

We could raise the bar on PR approvals, for documents that have gone to
FPWD.

I am happy to discuss other options from improving review quality.

OS

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 9:14 AM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> On 16 Apr 2023 at 15:56 +0200, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>,
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 12:06 AM Kristina Yasuda
> <Kristina.Yasuda@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> I am confused why the publication date cannot be this Thursday 20th, given
> there are no changes to the document needed and there is already a WG
> resolution?
>
>
> Aside from the W3C approval process that Ivan mentioned, which is
> highly unlikely to be approved by this Thursday, there was an
> agreement[1] that the VC-JWT Editor's do the following things:
>
> 1. Directly update the specification based on what they felt needed to
> be done, given that it was noted that the specification was in bad
> shape[2].
> 2. Prepare a FPWD-ready document (Orie did this, thank you).
> 3. Present it to the group and have the group do a review of the
> document before it is published.
>
>
> Ouch. I have not been informed, or missed, this last round. As the
> document was publication ready, I have issued a request for publication
> this morning:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/500
>
> Ivan
>
>
> At this time, I will note that:
>
> * Items 1 and 3 have not happened.
>
> Regarding item 1, the large PR with concerns was merged (which was
> expected), but hardly any reworking of the specification for FPWD has
> occurred. A cursory review of the document shows that the
> specification is in just as bad of a shape as it was when we discussed
> it during the call last week. There was an opportunity to fix large
> parts of the specification, add issue markers for areas that are
> problematic, and, in general, improve the specification for FPWD
> publication. AFAICT, that has not happened.
>
> Regarding item 3, it was explicitly stated[2] that there would be a
> review cycle on the Editor's reformatting of the document for FPWD.
> Now, there seems to be a rush to publish while ignoring that review
> cycle.
>
> To be clear, I'm not objecting to FPWD. I'm just noting that what's
> happening is not what the WG had agreed to last week. I expect the
> Chairs to enforce the consensus of the group.
>
> -- manu
>
> [1]
> https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2023-04-12-vcwg#section3-4
> [2]https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/68#issuecomment-1503580134
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>