VC WG Charter renewal AC vote results

Dear all,

the charter renewal AC vote has ended. The main results:

- Supports charter as is: 28
- Suggests changes, but supports the charter regardless: 4
- Does not support the charter but no Formal Objection: 0
- Suggest changes with Formal Objection: 0
- Opposes the charter with Formal Objection: 0
- Abstains: 3 (one with comments)

I.e., we are good!

We reserved some time on next week's F2F meeting to handle with the possible charter changes, but it turns out that they are minimal. I will report in what follows about the details and my proposed changes, with the hope we can close this issue without spending major time on the F2F. Note that, at this point, no substantial change can be done on the charter text, only those that answer to the reviewers' comments. 

(Note also that, as reflected in the votes, no comments are really blocking so, in theory, we may decide to ignore them. But I would prefer not to do that.)

There are only two comments that need discussions.

1. One commenter remarked that the liaison statements might be out of date (e.g., the RCH Working Group is now in maintenance mode, so a liaison statement does not make sense). 

Remember that the current list has been taken over verbatim from the current charter (i.e., the one accepted two years ago) with an addition to the SPICE WG (which was requested by the W3C management).

I have made some minor changes in a PR[1]: removed the RCH WG reference and there was an outdated DID WG home page URI. All the other targets are still valid, and I did not see any reason to remove them. But I am not familiar with all the details. Please tell us if you think another entry should be removed as outdated. Otherwise, we can merge [1] and consider the comment as properly answered.

2. Another commenter remarked that "The HTTP API seems to be highly normative. This should either be an agreed deliverable or removed". 

The reference is in [2]. Whether it is “highly normative” is a judgement call, but there is another issue. I heard that the CCG might consider submitting that document as a potential Rec-track document at W3C, either in a future incarnation of this WG, or in another one. However, per the new process of W3C, it has become frowned upon to turn a WG Note into a Rec-track document: if we do publish a Note based on the CCG document, than such a rec-track transition might become difficult. I.e., simply removing that reference from the text might answer to the comment, and would save us some problems in the future. (Let alone the fact that the list in the text is a “such as”, i.e., it is not necessarily the final text.) This is done in another PR[3].

That is it. 

I hope we can keep the discussion at the F2F meeting short and sweet…

Cheers, and see you soon

Ivan

[1] https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/125
[2] https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-api/
[3] https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/126

----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43