[MINUTES] VCWG VCALM 2026-04-07

The VCWG convened for its inaugural W3C meeting, marking a significant
transition from the Verifiable Credentials Community Group (CCG) to the
official W3C Verifiable Credentials Working Group (VCWG). A key resolution
was passed to publish the VC API for Lifecycle Management specification as
a First Public Working Draft (FPWD), signifying a major step in the
standardization process. The meeting also addressed administrative matters,
community introductions, and established a workflow for processing pull
requests and managing contributions within the W3C framework.

*Topics Covered:*

   - *Introductions:* Attendees introduced themselves and their interest in
   verifiable credentials.
   - *VCWG Transition to Specification Path:* The group officially
   transitioned from the CCG to the W3C VCWG, moving towards a formal
   recommendation path for the specification.
   - *Community Introductions:* Participants shared their backgrounds and
   ongoing projects related to verifiable credentials, highlighting real-world
   applications and integrations.
   - *Administrative Items:* Key W3C policies, including IPR,
   transcription, and code of conduct, were reviewed.
   - *First Public Working Draft Process:* The process and implications of
   publishing a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) for the VC API for Lifecycle
   Management specification were discussed. The group resolved to proceed with
   publishing the FPWD.
   - *Pull Request Processing and Work Mode:* The group discussed and
   reaffirmed their existing practices for handling pull requests, emphasizing
   the importance of consensus, review periods, and proper documentation for
   merged changes. One pull request (PR #618) was approved and merged.

*Action Items:*

   - *Patrick St-Louis:* Send an email to W3C chairs (Brent Zundell and
   Phil Archer) communicating the resolution to publish the FPWD and
   requesting to run the same proposal on the main working group call.
   - *Eric Schuh:* Continue updating the VC API Use Cases repository and
   prepare PRs for review.
   - *Facilitators (Patrick St-Louis & Kayode Ezike):* Ensure all
   discussions and decisions regarding issue resolution are appropriately
   documented in the issue tracker, linking to relevant pull requests, to
   satisfy W3C management's requirements for disposition of comments.
   - *All Attendees:* Continue to monitor pull requests and provide timely
   reviews and feedback, adhering to the established review period.

HTML: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-vcwg-vcalm-2026-04-07.html

Video: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-vcwg-vcalm-2026-04-07.mp4

[image: W3C] <https://www.w3.org/>
VCWG VCALM 7 April 2026 Attendees

Present

Benjamin Young, Dave Longley, Dmitri Zagidulin, Elaine Wooton, Eric Schuh,
Henrique Xavier, James Easter, Joe Andrieu, John's Notetaker, Kayode Ezike,
Kevin Dean, Manu Sporny, Nate Otto, Parth Bhatt, Patrick St-Louis, Ted
Thibodeau Jr

Regrets

-

Chair

-

Scribe

transcriber
Contents

   1. Introductions <#f60d>
   2. VCWG Transition To Specification Path <#9dcf>
   3. Community Introductions <#7db9>
   4. Administrative Items <#7c07>
   5. First Public Working Draft Process <#8666>
   6. Pull Request Processing and Work Mode <#d51d>
   7. Summary of resolutions <#ResolutionSummary>

Meeting minutes Introductions

Kevin Dean: Welcome

Patrick St-Louis: Welcome to the call everyone. We'll get started in a
couple minutes.
VCWG Transition To Specification Path

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, I'm going to get started with the call. So, welcome
everyone to the first W3C verifiable credential working group VC call
meeting.

Kevin Dean: It's good.

Patrick St-Louis: So today is a very important day for those who have been
following the credential community group version of this call in the
previous years. as previously known as the VC API has been many years in
the making and we are finally transitioning towards a specification
recommendation path. so today is 7th of April 2026. this is a W3C meeting
so all W3C policies are into effect and let's get started.
Community Introductions

Patrick St-Louis: So since this is the first edition of the verifiable
credential community group version of this call I'm going to go ahead and
let people introduce themselves. If there's people who are joining for the
first time or people would like to reintroduce themselves please go ahead
and let us know if you want to a bit about yourself what interests you in
this call and if you have any interesting projects you're working on where
you would like to leverage the VC API. Yes, Nate.

Nate Otto: Hello. I can introduce myself. I've been on the CCG variant of
this call for a little while and now my organization Skybridge Skills is a
new W3C member. So, I'll be continuing with this work. I have been involved
in verifiable credentials and sort of precursors to that for quite a while.
specifically I work a lot on open badges at 1D tech. I'm the chair of the
open badges and comprehensive learner record task force there a working
group where we standardize open badges and CLR as well as a couple other
one tech extensions. I do work specifically with VCOM in a few different
ways. One I implement them in products.

Nate Otto: So I have a platform called the Skybridge skills platform that
implements VCOM for issuance and very soon for verification using
exchanges. I have a platform called Orca that's an open-source piece of
software for self-claiming and peer endorsement of learning credentials and
that will very soon use VCOM as well. and I contribute to the digital
credentials consortium's open- source software such as their dcc
transaction service and I'm currently in the process of upgrading that to
use the latest version of VCOM. So a lot of different work care about this
a lot and I really like how VCOM can be a wrapper for some of these other
protocols.

Patrick St-Louis: Thank you This was a great introduction to see which real
world example of where these types of protocols and API definition can be
used. it's really really good to hear.

Nate Otto: And other consulting through other organizations where I also
continue to push ecom into more and more products.

Patrick St-Louis: I suppose I could go. so myself Patrick I've been in the
VCOM or VCAPI called for quite a few years now. I want to just roughly say
maybe four years something like that more or less.

Patrick St-Louis: I was brought into the space working in Canada with the
government of British Columbia and I've been sort of looking at making sure
that the software we use or that BC use is somewhat conformant or not too
far away from the principles discussed in VCOM. So we use the acupited
foundation. So I've been trying to ensure that some of the primitives there
they get a little bit closer to vcom to enable some interoperability layer
if the requirements arise. so this group has been very interesting to me.

Patrick St-Louis: We discuss a lot of different topics mostly centered
around verifiable credential but since this is about the life cycle of
verifiable credential we touch a lot of things as not only the credentials
themselves but how to manage them how to exchange them from different
parties and what is possible with all this so I see the VCOM maybe a way as
the glue that puts together whether status list or credential issuance and
how to put it into action. So, it's been very interesting for me. and
that's it for me. anyone else would like to introduce themselves?

Kevin Dean: Kevin Dean with Legendary Requirements. I'm co-editor of the VC
use cases document along with Joe Andrew also with Legendary Requirements.

Kevin Dean: Formerly I was with GS1 and was the chief architect behind the
credentials data model that GS1 developed for their licensing system.

Patrick St-Louis: very interesting Kevin.

Patrick St-Louis: Thank you for the introduction. I'll leave one more
minute if anyone wants to raise their hand.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, Manu.

Manu Sporny: I guess I'll go real quick to mention…

Manu Sporny: why we're interested in this stuff. hi, my name is Manu
Spornney. I've been working with many of you on this specification for many
years now. I think it's been 5 years, which is insane to say that it's been
that long. I'm with a company called Digital Bazaar. There are a number of
people from Digital Bazaar here. VCOM powers, all of our issuance, holding
verification software. it's built into it. as many of we also work with,
organizations like True Age and Knack who use VCOM for all of the
production deployments. We work with, California DMV, and a couple of other
California agencies, again, all using VCOM in production.

Manu Sporny: We are very interested in getting this thing to a global
standard because people are adopting it faster than we're able to get it
down the standards track which is a great signal. but really looking
forward to making a global standard. That's it.

Patrick St-Louis: Thank you Manu for providing this context. thank you for
these introductions. very nice to see interest in the call. so I want to
give the space maybe for any community updates or if there's any words that
wants to be officialized for this new page of the VCOM group if someone
wants to put a introduction word about where this will lead us and u I host
this call but there's people that are a bit more familiar than me

Patrick St-Louis: with all the standardization process. so we'd be happy to
hear what there's to say. Manuel
Administrative Items

Manu Sporny: Sure thing. I will try to cover all the administrative items
and apologies for those of you that were in a previous call where we
covered all of this stuff. It's going to very much be a repeat. so as
Patrick mentioned, this is an official W3C verifiable credential task force
call. anyone that joins has to be a member of the working group as an
invited expert or whatever. I think I've checked everyone and you're all
good. any contributions that you make during the call, fall under the
agreement. if you know of any patents of any kind, you need to let the
group know.

Manu Sporny: because we are building a specification that is meant to be
patent and royalty free anyone can implement it in the world without asking
us for permission. the call is transcribed and recorded and that is going
to hold true for every single meeting. if you object to that you need to
let the group know especially the people that are facilitating the call.
that's Patrick. and I think Benjamin you as well. I'm getting confused with
my task forces, but I think you're the backup for this. No, I'm totally
wrong. Coyote, it's My apologies. So, the facilitators for this call are
Patrick and Coyote. so the general process here we're basically going to
keep doing the same thing.

Manu Sporny: We do pull request issue processing, assign issues to people
get that stuff done. we are officially under W3C process at this point. So
it might be good to review the W3C process document. Let me get a link to
that. If you're ever wondering where we are in the process or what the
requirements are to get to the next process, the W3C process document is a
fantastic document. it is very detailed. It is really well written, over 25
years of W3C's operations.

Manu Sporny: So, especially Patrick Coyote, that is your friend when you
need to figure out where we are, what we need to do next. I think that's
largely it again, as Patrick mentioned, we operate under the W3C code of
conduct. that is also another excellent document. that is let me try and
find the conduct con I can't spell conduct here. that is this document that
I'll put in the chat channel. again a very good document about how we are
expected to behave.

Manu Sporny: Not that we've ever had any issue with that in this group. I
think a high level that's it. We do need to talk about work mode when we
raise a PR, how long should it sit out before it gets merged? what do we do
if we don't get to consensus in anything in particular that we're, talking
about? But again, we've been doing pretty well in this group and I don't
expect there to be, any issues there. I'll pause there, I guess, see if
there are any questions or things I missed. and then we may want to talk
about the first order of business, which is the publication of a first
public working draft for the specification. and we can go into what that
means and what the process there is and all that kind of stuff in a bit.
let me pause and see if there are any questions, concerns, any of

Manu Sporny> W3C Process Document <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/>

Patrick St-Louis: Eric. …

Eric Schuh: Yeah,…

Manu Sporny> Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Conduct
<https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/>

Eric Schuh: mine's somewhat unrelated, but just some more front matter
stuff. so Mono, I think wrap up with whatever you're doing and then I'll
chime in.

Manu Sporny: I think any other questions, concerns?
First Public Working Draft Process

Patrick St-Louis: so just to go back what you meant. So we are at the
moment starting to progress to what's called the WTC recommendation track
if I understand. And you mentioned very specifically that our first goal is
to reach this publishing step. Correct. So that's…

Manu Sporny: All right.

Patrick St-Louis: that's where we want to be not necessarily as fast as
possible fairly quickly. and could you expand a bit like that part is so
important and what this will do for us? Manu Sporny:

Manu Sporny: Yes, I can. But Eric, I don't know if you wanted to do your
thing before we got into those details because that'll probably be the
next, 15 minute chunk of the

Eric Schuh: Yeah. Yeah.

Eric Schuh: I just wanted to speak a bit on our use cases repo that it has
been somewhat languishing for the last bit. the group hasn't spent too much
time looking at the use cases since probably about a year ago I think was
the last time we really turned our attention to it. so I did just want to
let the group know that kind of in the latter half of this week I do plan
on publishing a series of PRs for that repo. one of them is going to mostly
be structural and language updates because we've changed terminology quite
a bit since the last time we looked at the use cases.

Eric Schuh: But then I'm also going to be putting in a series of PRs that
updates the sequence diagrams to make use of workflows which I don't
believe any of our sequence diagrams in the use cases currently use the
workflow mechanism at all. so Patrick I'm not sure when scheduling wise it
would make sense to start look at that chunk of work as well. I don't think
it's super urgent, but just wanted to let everyone know that that's going
to be showing up.

Eric Schuh: And if anyone has time in the next week or two to start taking
a look at some of those PRs, it would be appreciated.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah,…

Patrick St-Louis: that sounds really good. just so are you talking about a
separate report? It's kind of a use case section within VCOM.

Eric Schuh: No, it is a separate repo. I'll go grab the link and…

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Eric Schuh: put it in chat.

Patrick St-Louis: VC API use cases.

Patrick St-Louis: I think Manuel put it here. and that is going to remain
at the CCG, but we want to just make sure it's being updated with what we
do at the VCOM here. Is that the EV version of it? All right, that sounds
really good.

Manu Sporny> VC API Use Cases
<https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-api-use-cases/index.html>

Eric Schuh: Yes. Yep.

Eric Schuh: That sounds right.

Patrick St-Louis: Thank you, Manu.

Manu Sporny: And I'm sorry I'm going to be annoying about, process stuff
because I don't see other Ivonne Phil might have said this if they were
here. I don't know. So typically the working group works on working group
things and the community group owns that document, the use cases document,
which totally slipped my mind. We should have asked for that to also be
published as a CG final so that we could move it into this group. I think
we have to do some kind of official handoff process. we will probably have
to ask Avon or Phil Brent if it's really required. the reason it might not
be required is there's no IPR in the use cases document.

Manu Sporny: I don't think anyone's going to assert a patent on it or
copyright assertion on it but Avon will probably want us to just go through
the appropriate process which means final published then it moved over to
this group. I don't know if it is okay for a working group to work on CG
documents. I personally don't think there's any issue but again we're going
to have to ask about it. I think the sooner we get that thing over into
this group the better off it's just going to be easier to continue to work
on it. so just we might flag that as a question for the call tomorrow.

Patrick St-Louis: Sounds good.

Patrick St-Louis: Eric

Eric Schuh: Yeah,…

Eric Schuh: I guess Monu, if there's anything you need me to do since I've
been kind of overseeing the use cases, I also forgot the last few weeks, so
my bad as well. but if there's anything you need me to do in terms of
process, let me know. yeah.

Manu Sporny: Okay, I think the first thing is we just need to ask them
tomorrow what do they almost certainly will be like yes go through the
process final get it moved over to the working group it's probably…

Patrick St-Louis: Perfect.

Eric Schuh: I guess just from a process perspective,… Manu Sporny:

Manu Sporny: what they're going to Nah.

Ted Thibodeau Jr> yes, best to dot our Ts and cross our Is

Eric Schuh: is there any reason for me to hold off on PRs or should I push
forward as planned? Okay, perfect.

Manu Sporny: Yeah. The only question I'd have is can we even talk about it
in this group? I don't have an objection to doing that,…

Eric Schuh: Yeah. Yeah, sure. …

Manu Sporny: but again, there might be some weird IPR thing that the
lawyers, would get cranky over.

Eric Schuh: I guess the one other thing, that comes to mind is that we have
updated the name of this group. It is still called the VC API use cases. I
don't know if it' be worth migrating to a VCOM use cases if we're doing
this at the same time, but I also don't know that that matters all that
much.

Manu Sporny: We would probably want to be consistent in the CG final that
we publish.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, this would sounds like some legacy thing that …

Patrick St-Louis: might as well just update it to make sure that the VC API
is not a different thing than VCOM…

Eric Schuh: Yeah, I can do that.

Patrick St-Louis: because it's the same thing. are you okay with putting
that in your list, Eric, of PR and updates? Okay, sounds good. Okay. yes, I
do.

Manu Sporny: So, now I was going to suggest we kind of start talking about
the first public working draft and what it does and what it means and…

Manu Sporny: all that kind of stuff. Are we good to go into that topic?

Patrick St-Louis: If…

Patrick St-Louis: unless someone else has an objection and would like to
ask a question, I'm in favor of jumping to that topic. Yes, let's go ahead.

Manu Sporny: All So, first public working draft is basically, let me cover
another process thing. We can't officially make any resolutions in this
group. we can say that we want the main group to make a resolution but if
we for example decide to publish as a first public working draft all of us
get together and we're like we all want to do it and we do a proposal plus
ones and a resolution but that is not binding we have to then take that
resolution over to the main working group and the main working group has to
pass it we can have some discussions with the chairs about I think that may
become a bit

Manu Sporny: unwieldy as things go on, but for the FPWD, it's probably So,
what is a first public working draft? It is the first official publication
of a document that a working group is working on. Right? So, right now
there's a URL at W3C called the technical report kind of path. slashtr all
official W3C documents that are either in process or published as standards
sit in the technical report space so VCOM isn't there right now right we
have a GitHub pages URL but we haven't announced to the world that we're

Manu Sporny: we're going to start working on this stuff and by the way
here's the first version of it here's the first draft of it so that's why
it's called the first public working draft it's us taking the VCOM spec and
publishing it in a way that communicates to the world that this is the
first public working draft you should probably start reading it after we do
that so there's a process there you have to request it from the W3C
management they have to approve it the W3C staff have to create this thing
we're looking at, the W3C staff have to do some things to make sure that it
shows up on that big W3C standards page. and then once that's set up,
everything kind of becomes a little more automatic, meaning at that point,
every new PR we merge results in an automated publication of a new working
draft.

Manu Sporny: And so it's like every time you make changes and merge a new
version of the specification is published. so that's kind of what the FBWD
is. it also kickstarts the intellectual property release process meaning
like we basically say okay this is where we are right now. and to be clear
a publishing a first public working draft doesn't mean we all agree on
what's in the document. It doesn't mean that the working group agrees with
it and it definitely does not mean that the W3C agrees with it. Right? So,
it's just like a here you go, first public version, we're going to keep
working on this. that's what it's supposed to signal. it kickstarts the
intellectual property release process and sets a date.

Manu Sporny: And I think it's within six months any organization that is
within the working group and ideally it's preferred that any organization
within the W3C say that they have patents associated with whatever we're
doing. and if you don't make the announcement, I think by default you
release all your patents. which is why big companies care about this
process. there's a burden on them to assert that they have patents and
they're not going to release the patents for stuff that's in the spec. And
this is how we get to a patented royalty-free standard global
specification. okay.

Manu Sporny: So, all of that stuff is wrapped up and NW3C also makes an
announcement on their web page that says, "Hey, we just released the first
public working draft of this." okay. So, that's kind of everything that's
kicked off with Patrick, you said, " maybe we want to wait, it's not a
super rush. maybe we wait a couple of weeks." I'm going to suggest we do it
today. mainly because, we've been working on this for five years. it's kind
of been out there. my opinion is it's certainly good enough for just a
first public working draft. and if we want to do that, we'd have to make a
proposal and a bunch of plus ones. But let me stop there to see if there
are any questions on the first public working draft process or what it
means or anything else related to that.

Joe Andrieu: I had a question with regard so maybe I didn't hear the
connecting thread between we can't make resolutions and…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, case.

Joe Andrieu: we need to make a resolution so this would be a resolution
that would go to the main working group for consideration for the FPWD.
Okay.

Manu Sporny: It's a bit of a bummer. I wish they would have done it. So,
it's like you had seven days to object to resolutions, but since the
meeting's tomorrow, I don't think it's a big deal. So we would make a
proposal and a resolution that would get recorded that would give us a link
at the end of today that we can link to. Then we go to the call tomorrow
and we're like, "Hey, we made a resolution yesterday. This is what the
resolution was. We would like to make the same resolution on the working
group." And then it becomes a binding resolution and then that allows us to
actually do the official request.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yeah, there's the bad news. at that point It becomes
provisional and the working group as a whole has a week to object to it
because we didn't announce the vote in advance.

Manu Sporny: Ted is absolutely correct. Sorry, I was sloppy with my
explanation. Yes, that is…

Manu Sporny: how it works.

Patrick St-Louis: What…

Patrick St-Louis: how does that affect the timeline to

Manu Sporny: It doesn't because usually the publication if we decided that
this is what we want to do we would set the publication date to the 16th of
April and that is more than seven days from now. and if the proposal is
made tomorrow or if the resolution passes tomorrow,…

Manu Sporny: 7 days from that is the next Wednesday and the publication
would happen on the 16th and if somebody objected to it between before the
end of the 15th then they would stop the publication highly unlikely for
that to happen. but that's kind of how it would go if somebody were to
object.

Patrick St-Louis: I personally don't have any objection to that.

Patrick St-Louis: Again not super familiar with this whole process. I
understand I've seen specification make it through as an observant right
that's just looking what it goes through but I've never been really
directly involved.

Patrick St-Louis: So I will trust those who has been on this path before to
make recommendation about the pace that we should adopt. my question is so
you mentioned we might want to make a decision today. So what do we need to
concretely do with the rest reminder of our 30 minutes to arrive to that
decision?

Manu Sporny: We typically say, would anyone object to the publication of, a
first public working draft for VCOM? and then if there are no objections,
you would type in a proposal in the chat channel. And I've got an example
proposed that you could base it that then we just do + one minus one plus 0
based on what we think. typic not typically it is one vote per organization.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: But you can have multiple people from the same organization do
a plus one. that's fine. But if it really came down to it, and you really
needed to count the votes, it's just like one vote per invited expert, So
all that to say, feel free to plus one plus 0 minus one. but we make sure
it's just one vote, one company or one organization or one IE to make sure
that companies don't pack the votes. the text in meet as coyote mentioned
we have fixed that. everything that is being typed is recorded in the chat
channel. It will be in the minutes. you will see it at the end of the day.

Manu Sporny: the proposals and resolutions all will show up. So whatever we
do this to record it via the chat channel. So that should work. Coyot
that's been fixed. So the next step I think Patrick Coyote is asking if
anyone would object to a first public working draft. and if not the
proposal is basically going to say something like publish the BC API for
life cycle management specification.

Kayode Ezike> Don’t know if this matters, but the votes in Meet are not
recorded

Manu Sporny: Then we need to put in a URL as a first public working graph
using VCOM as The short name is important because that's the thing that
shows up in R space. so that's the process and the next step.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. …

Patrick St-Louis: so if we think about a lot of the efforts lately were
around I think fine-tuning some details about the response body and request
body for mostly the workflows and even more specifically the presentation
requests.

Patrick St-Louis: So these are very kind of detail oriented efforts that
were meant to support additional use case. I think as far as the overall
specification goes like there I haven't noticed any substantial changes
since we sort of introduced the interaction scheme and we merged in the
verifiable presentation request.

Patrick St-Louis: There's also on average maybe one or two issues open a
week and again these are some fairly detail oriented suggestion for the
spec. so with this being considered I think it's in a pretty good spot to
suggest proposing for a initial publication. So I would like to pass the
vote. Does anyone object to making our current public working draft?
knowing that we have pending thing to put in which are as I mentioned
pretty detail oriented so far there's not been how can I say strong
disagreements lately.

Patrick St-Louis: I think the group is pretty unified on the state of the
spec and the direction. So I'm going to open the floor for anyone who would
like to object to making our, official first public working draft. So I see
no objection. So we can use the Okay.

Manu Sporny: Not yet. Part don't vote. Go ahead, Patrick. we will need to
generate one…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: So I officially propose the version we have standing as
of the 4th of April 2026 as our first public working graph and we will see
what comes Next thing.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Do we need a date stamped URL?

Parth Bhatt> +1

Manu Sporny: if we pass this proposal. So, we have not passed a proposal
yet. Patrick's just asking to see if anyone would object if we tried to
pass the proposal. in the chat channel, Patrick is the literal text you're
going to need to copy and paste. because the proposal needs to come from
either you Coyote usually. everything after the slashme proposal colon is
the thing and once you paste that in there then we + one minus one plus z
there we go. So at this point now power can feel free to

Patrick St-Louis: or do we need a unanimous plus one here or

Manu Sporny: a after you look and you've got Joe with his hand up so don't
do the resolution yet. okay.

Joe Andrieu: Yeah. Yeah.

Joe Andrieu: Mine is not about the voting. It's a meta logistical question.

Manu Sporny: So next step Patrick would be to do instead of proposal you
put type in all caps resolution colon and the exact same text and you paste
that in there and…

Manu Sporny: then that will be the thing that gets into the minutes and
shows up and that sort of thing.

Patrick St-Louis> PROPOSAL: Publish the VC API for Lifecycle Management
specification (https://w3c.github.io/vcalm/>) as a First Public Working
Draft using 'vcalm' as the shortname.

Joe Andrieu: So that is in fact my question.

Patrick St-Louis> +1

Manu Sporny> +1

Dave Longley> +1

Joe Andrieu: Coyote mentioned that the chat doesn't get logged into the
minutes.

Parth Bhatt> +1

Eric Schuh> +1

Patrick St-Louis: or do we need plus one that as well

Kayode Ezike> +1

Ted Thibodeau Jr> +1

Manu Sporny: It does now.

Elaine Wooton> +1

Joe Andrieu> +1

Manu Sporny: So, we fixed that a couple of weeks ago.

Benjamin Young> +1

James Easter> +1

Joe Andrieu: Okay.

Manu Sporny: So, all of this will show up and you can use all the same
commands that you use in IRC.

Nate Otto> +1

Joe Andrieu: Cool. Thanks.

Manu Sporny: Okay. Nope. Nope. that's the full resolution. if you don't
want something to show up in the minutes, you can preface it with slashme
as Dave mentioned and this is a new feature of colon for off list off you
just don't want it mentioned. everything else that you type in there will
get we'll see if that feature works. you'll be the first one testing it
live, Dave. But the resolution.

Patrick St-Louis: Fantastic. Yeah.

Dmitri Zagidulin> +1

Manu Sporny: So the second you paste that in there, Patrick, that's the
resolution. We're good to go.

*RESOLUTION:* Publish the VC API for Lifecycle Management specification (
https://w3c.github.io/vcalm/>) as a First Public Working Draft using
'vcalm' as the shortname.

Patrick St-Louis: So, I think we had a pretty unanimous decision and pretty
in support of this. What do I do now?

Manu Sporny: That's it.

Dmitri Zagidulin> +1

Manu Sporny: We're done. Yay. yeah,…

Patrick St-Louis: Thats that.

Patrick St-Louis: All right.

Manu Sporny: that's that topic. So, we just published the first public
working graph, which is great. and now it's like we'll need to send an
email Patrick to the chairs and request that hey I want to pass this
resolution tomorrow. we want to run the same resolution on the main call
tomorrow. so the timing around that's a bit annoying because we have to
wait until 6 PM Eastern for all of the minutes to autopublish.

Manu Sporny: When that happens, there will be an HTML file created with an
anchor that points to the resolution and you can use that as a link to tell
them here's the resolution that we passed. You can also copy paste the text
and email it to them. either one would work. and if I…

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: if I notice that it hasn't happened by tomorrow, I'll try to
also send something to them. But Patrick, the action for you is send an
email to the chairs, Brent Zundell and, Phil Archer, that, we would like to
run a proposal tomorrow.

Patrick St-Louis: Swearing down. Okay. Kyote, do you want to

Kayode Ezike: Yeah, sorry if you mentioned it so much, but will we need to
run the proposal tomorrow as well and have them get consensus too or is it
just telling them? Okay.

Manu Sporny: Yes. Unfortunately, yes. we might ask them is there a
different way we can operate cuz or…

Manu Sporny: what that's going to basically result in is that we are
probably just not going to pass a lot of resolutions here and just operate
based on a expectation of consensus without record really other than the
discussion.

Patrick St-Louis: Who's this?

Patrick St-Louis: So, I'm going to go on a limb and assume that we don't
want to merge any more PRs since we got the resolution here. merging PR
might invalidate this resolution at least until we have this first working
graph published.

Manu Sporny: I wouldn't worry about it too much…

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: because if someone objects again a FPWD publication means
nothing about the consensus on the document and…

Patrick St-Louis: Yep. Ted. Yeah.

Manu Sporny: and if we publish an FPWD the very next edit can just delete
all of the content in the spec and that's a totally valid I mean surely
people would object Jack, but just because you publish the FPWD doesn't
mean it's going to keep looking the same way. We can change everything and
anything within there. that's it.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: It's usually better not and we're fine with what it is.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Patrick St-Louis: But as long as we demonstrate that we have a group of
people and we are making decisions and we are attending the meetings and we
want to move this forward. Perfect. that reassures me. so I would like to
take the time that's left maybe to go over these two PRs that are open.
before we do that, just want to make sure is there anything else we need to
discuss in relation to our resolution or are we happy to move on? Yeah,
now's the time.
Pull Request Processing and Work Mode

Manu Sporny: happy to move on. I might mention something about PRs and
processing and work mode before we get into the PR. So, let me know when we
head there. All right. So, typically working groups have a working mode.
things get a little more official when you're in a working group. it's
usually frowned upon to raise PRs and then merge them two two hours, two
days, whatever later. Usually you want PRs to hang out there for a week. We
have been kind of working like that. anything substantive what we don't
want to do is we don't want to merge something into the specification that
doesn't have consensus because it's just going to come back and bite us
later, right?

Manu Sporny: So we have to make sure that we have consensus on the things
we merge into the specification. we have to ideally give people plenty of
time to review it. So 7 days is a pretty decent review period. and then
when we merge it we have to make it very clear things like is it
substantive or normative? have there been multiple reviews on it? Has
anyone objected to it? that sort of thing. basically, do you have consensus
on the thing that you're merging? and the more we keep to that the smoother
the transition to candidate direct will be.

Patrick St-Louis: So I think I wouldn't say it's 100% of the case here, but
for the most part our process has been that an issue is raised usually
either following an idea that had during the week or following a discussion
we had during the call. and then we triage this issue using tags. And this
is where probably we can triage based of what you said if it's substantive
or the type of issue it is we assign someone and then this person is
responsible for raising a PR depending on their availability and then these
PRs are reviewed as part of this call.

Patrick St-Louis: There have been some very exceptional circumstances that
we almost came to a resolution during the call and we have agreed that if
there was a small change that the small train could be put in and sort of
merged in and approved outside out of ban. But most of the time we do the
merge here. and we let plenty of time for people to object. and if there's
things missing we usually just wait to the week after. we have been closing
on average anywhere from two to five PRs per call. probably closer to three
or four usually.

Patrick St-Louis: What I did here is a bad example. So, I opened a while
ago and then got sidetracked and this has been sitting here since the 16th
of December. I think that's a very bad example. but it's the situation it
is right now relating to my commitment to this PR. usually very rarely P
stay open more than two weeks. unless someone has a conflict and they can't
make a meeting and these kind of decisions. so I think we can continue like
this from what I understood man I think that's a sufficient work and we
make sure the PR links to the issue so we can know the scope of the PR if
it's substantive and whatnot.

Patrick St-Louis: Yep.

Patrick St-Louis: Not enough.

Manu Sporny: Yes. yeah,…

Manu Sporny: I think the way that we've been operating is pretty good. But
to give use a concrete example today Parth has a new PR which is 620 add
the redirect URL to step options and step data. He raised it an hour ago.
we can discuss it on the call and we will discuss it on the call. but we
should not merge that today. that's an example of we need to let it hang
out there for a week…

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. Yeah.

Manu Sporny: because They might not be paying attention and they may have
an objection to it. And if we miss it and we put it in the spec, then all
of a sudden we've got to back it out and it's just a pain, right?

Patrick St-Louis: So maybe that's something we'll need to pay attention
because I think it has been a pattern that a few PRs get open within a day
before the call sometime we merge them.

Patrick St-Louis: So maybe if that's the case, we want to leave a comment
that we've discussed it and there was consensus, but we're leaving it open
for the next call and then the next call should be very very quick to kind
of merge and that should be good. there's edge case when it comes to
rebates and merge conflicts, but that's just things we'll have to deal with
in time. so let's at least review one of them and again we probably won't
merge these because they've been recently open but at least we can discuss
them maybe see if there's any objection or any improvement that needs to be
done and then we can on the next hall kind of merge them. so part do you
want to take us over this PR here about the number 618

Parth Bhatt: Last week I think I missed to add a result property in the
OSML file and…

Patrick St-Louis: team.

Parth Bhatt: rest of the thing was approved and reviewed. the issue is
about adding an optional result in the issue request. So I have added the
pros to the index html as well as the property into the os.mml file and…

Parth Bhatt: that's pretty much it.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, that's very good.

Patrick St-Louis: So I think that's an example. This was open last week.
It's already gone through one round of review that was discussed last week
and we can now make sure that this has been approved. I'm seeing a lot of
thumbs up in the spec and in the call. so this looks clean to me. It's a
very small PR. is there any objection to us merging this PR and closing
this issue? can you confirm? So this will address this issue in its
totality part.

Parth Bhatt: Yes.

Patrick St-Louis: We'll be able to close this after. Perfect.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, Ted.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: It would be helpful to share the link to that in the chat.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: I don't know

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, I have a very large monitor.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: what it looks like to other people. I have a very small
text. Yeah, that helps.

Patrick St-Louis: So, we are on the opposite side. yeah, usually when
someone shares a monitor with high resolution, the text can look very very
small. So, thank you. and if anyone has any problem with readability,…

Ted Thibodeau Jr: That 618 is getting a 404.

Patrick St-Louis: just let me know and I can just zoom in. that should be
fine. are you should have access like this.

Patrick St-Louis: This is public menu. Okay. …

Manu Sporny: it. GitHub bug like I can see it.

Manu Sporny: Try refreshing,…

Patrick St-Louis: I know sometime like private repo you'll see it…

Manu Sporny: Ted. …

Patrick St-Louis: if you're on the organization.

Joe Andrieu: Weirdly for me,…

Patrick St-Louis: There's no issue 618.

Joe Andrieu: it redirected to issue 618, which that does seem like a GitHub
bug.

Patrick St-Louis> Add optional result property to issueRequests and clarify
variable name string format. by bparth24 · Pull Request #618 · w3c/vcalm ·
GitHub <https://github.com/w3c/vcalm/pull/618>

Manu Sporny: weird. GitHub might be having a bad hour. Amen.

Parth Bhatt> Issue - w3c-ccg/vcalm#583
<https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vcalm/issues/583>

Patrick St-Louis: There's been a lot of things we get out of the still.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: That makes all the difference.

Joe Andrieu: And Nates worked.

Dave Longley: Some of the links in the chat that are being shared are the
older links before this moved to the W3C space. They were in W3C CCG space.
So make sure if the link says W3C-CG, you got the wrong link. You can
manually edit out the - CCG or…

Patrick St-Louis: Yes.

Dave Longley: you can grab one of the links that doesn't have

Parth Bhatt> Add optional result property to issueRequests and clarify
variable name string format. by bparth24 · Pull Request #618 · w3c/vcalm ·
GitHub <https://github.com/w3c/vcalm/pull/618>

Patrick St-Louis: Yes. Yes.

Dave Longley> ^ the links from Parth need to be changed to say "w3c" not
"w3c-ccg"

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, you click on the link that part pasted Ted the
W3CCCG one that was the Okay.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yeah, that was the one I was clicking on, of course,
because that's the one that was there.

Nate Otto> Add optional result property to issueRequests and clarify
variable name string format. by bparth24 · Pull Request #618 · w3c/vcalm ·
GitHub <https://github.com/w3c/vcalm/pull/618> It moved to w3c organization
now

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. So, yeah,…

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yeah, that is the solution.

Patrick St-Louis: it's been migrated. So, the just WTC should work. Can you
confirm it works for So, there's no objection. So, let's go ahead and merge
this. I will just have a look quickly to I think the commit history is
pretty good description. So, we're just going to go ahead and replace and
merge. There we go. The branch has been deleted. This has been closed.

Patrick St-Louis: And I think it should also close the issue which it has
not. but I'll close any objection to closing this issue here. There we go.
Easy. yes. Man,

Joe Andrieu> the latest link worked

Dave Longley: You are muted, Mona.

Manu Sporny: Thank you very much. I was muted. there is a point at which
you have to provide W3C management with what is called a disposition of
comments. You have to prove to them that during the course of the working
group, you addressed every single comment that came in.

Manu Sporny: Doesn't matter where it comes in It could be from a raccoon in
South America,…

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Parth Bhatt> Sorry about the old links

Manu Sporny: you have to respond to it. You have to say these are the
things that we did as a result of your comment. it doesn't mean you have to
make a change. you just have to say we took a look at it and this was the
result. So you want to be very clear in these things when you close it that
you either addressed the issue or you decided not to address the issue. We
may want to start picking some labels for that.

Manu Sporny: Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, that sounds good. that's more about issues more
than pull requests. we want to

Patrick St-Louis: reply in the issue what was done and why we think it's
addressed.

Manu Sporny: And you end up linking to the pull request in the issue. they
should be birectional links. the pull request,…

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, they are Yeah,…

Manu Sporny: The issue should point to the pull request. You don't want to
autoc close issues because sometimes one pull request isn't enough. You
need one or two or three. it's basically if at any point W3C management is
like what did you do about this comment? You should be able to very quickly
say yeah it looks like we raised an issue and the issue made these changes
and…

Manu Sporny: we waited the seven days and there were no objections and we
merged and we closed it like that. You have to be able to answer things
quickly like that.

Patrick St-Louis: that sounds reasonable.

Patrick St-Louis: Joe. Yeah.

Joe Andrieu: Plus one to all that.

Joe Andrieu: I just want to say we got to figure out how to moderate this
statement, Vanoo, because I don't know if we have policy yet about the
raccoons, but we are developing policy about AI and we have to be very
careful about not accepting the burden of having to respond to AI generated
things even though we don't yet have a way to know if it's from AI or not.
that's its own problem.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. I think that's a good comment.

Joe Andrieu: But Agreed. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: My initial reaction is let's wait until it's a problem to
make it a problem if that makes sense. I don't think at least in this
group, right, there's not been much of that issue. I've definitely seen it.
I think we all saw the public mailing list recently and what's going on
there.

Patrick St-Louis: But yeah, I think this is a good thing to consider
because we can get spammed with bogus kind of requests and issue. I think
so far it's mostly been us raising issues here. But now that we are on the
W3C VC working group, this might garner some more attention. So something
definitely worth monitoring. yes, raccoons are also just trying to help.
So, need to be kind. coyote.

Kayode Ezike: Yeah, could we regarding the decision comments? So how
exhaustive does Could it be something where we just use one comment to
respond to all of them and while we're closing or we have to respond to
every single comment whenever we close the video for example?

Patrick St-Louis: I can let Manu answer or I can propose an answer to this.

Patrick St-Louis: B. Okay.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I mean it's a judgment call, so Joe's raises a very good
point like we don't have to respond to bots or spam or people that are
abusive like all of these things happen in these public repositories. but
we do need to talk about it as a group and look at the issue and go like
this is AI generated slop or this person thinks there's an issue but there
clearly isn't an issue and we talked about it and so we're not going to
change the spec because there's no issue and we need to document that right
that's typically how you address these things so coyote it's kind of on a
case by case basis but you just

Manu Sporny: want to document as you go along because what you don't want
is W3C management to come back at the very end of the process and…

Manu Sporny: go there are 28 issues here where we have no idea…

Patrick St-Louis: I'm here.

Manu Sporny: what you did and there's no record of what you did and so you
need to go back and look at all those things. it doesn't happen like we'll
stay on top of it but specifically as facilitators Patrick and Coyote both
of you need to make sure that you're recording these things appropriately
so that it is very easy for you to defend every issue that we closed

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I think sometime also we put a comment like this
was discussed here what this person had to say and this was the resolution.

Patrick St-Louis: So I think these types of comments are good and I also
think this going to be highly dependent on if we have an issue that there's
50 replies right there's been a long discussion maybe we'll need to put a
little bit more text there to capture this if it's an issue that there's
been one reply and it was to add a word somewhere I think you probably
don't need to write a paragraph to say that this was addressed it's like a
bit simpler so I think going based on the size right of the issue. If it
was a very complicated issue and there's been many participant, we might
want to add a bit more text. If it's very simple, I think just a simple
line could do. so with that being said, we won't have time to go over this
today. however, this was also open one hour ago.

Patrick St-Louis: So I invite anyone to if they want to comment on this
poll request during the week to do so. this will be probably first thing on
our agenda next week. after probably we talk about the public draft
updates. I will take it upon myself to send that email today to Brent and
Phil with our resolution and we will discuss this tomorrow at the working
group. and that's it. We're going to conclude. So we try usually to end the
call five minutes before the hour. Now we're flat at the hour. we had quite
a few things to discuss today. and that will be thank you everyone for
attending and I will see you next week and have a good rest of your week.
Meeting ended after 01:00:00 👋 This editable transcript was computer
generated and might contain errors. People can also change the text after
it was created.

Benjamin Young> off: …hence the bandit mask
Summary of resolutions

   1. Publish the VC API for Lifecycle Management specification
   (https://w3c.github.io/vcalm/) as a First Public Working Draft using
   'vcalm' as the shortname. <#fdc1>

This transcription was generated by a large language model (LLM) and might
contain errors. When in doubt, check the audio recording. This page was
formatted by scribe.perl <https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html>
version 248 (Mon Oct 27 20:04:16 2025 UTC).