- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 09:58:38 -0400
- To: "public-vc-wg@w3.org" <public-vc-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 4:18 AM ProSapien Sam Smith <sam@prosapien.com> wrote: > So much for a big tent. Given that the -1s came from those companies that directly benefit from vc-jwt only and not others, it seems that any rough consensus will be impossible in the future for any variant of a big tent. Editor hat on, company hat off: I defer to the decision made by the Chairs; having the Chairs call "rough consensus" when there is a lack of W3C-style consensus is the process the WG agreed to follow. Editor hat off, company hat off... I thought we were following the BCPs of "rough consensus" defined in RFC2418 and RFC7282: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418#section-3.3 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7282 If the Chairs could share their reasoning, that might help enlighten the group? Is this a note of a temporary lack of rough consensus, or is this a final decision? I share Sam's concerns regarding the external messaging here: "a perceived gatekeeping of external proof formats by a vc-jwt minority"... which Christopher touched upon last week. How are we intending to have a level playing field here? -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021) https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2023 13:59:26 UTC