Re: Next process call is Next Wednesday 22nd, and only one issue is Agenda+'d (and that is old)

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:27 PM Michael Champion <> wrote:

> Several are registries.  We've been treating Registries as a subtype of
> ER, but discussion in makes me
> wonder if just creating a "registry" type that has more authority than a
> Note but not the overhead of Recommendation or even ER is good enough to
> solve the problem.  After all, do Registries really need implementer
> support, patent commitments, horizontal review, etc.?  If they do, I agree
> that making them type of ER makes sense but if not, do we really need to
> solve the numerous ER issues to create Registries as first-class working
> group products?

I've added Dan Burnett, co-chair of W3C Verifiable Claims WG, specifically
as they have requested that the W3C Credentials CG (which helped start the
VCWG) manage the ongoing work of various registries required for
maintenance of the VCWG after it reaches CR and closes (which will
hopefully happen soon).

The CCG community has currently agreed to take these registries on, but
they don't quite fit into our more easy-going processes. We don't believe
that we can submit them to IANA or other registry bodies either.

I personally think that registries may be sufficiently different from
Evergreen Standards that considering a different process for them may be

-- Christopher Allen, co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group

Received on Monday, 20 May 2019 21:55:28 UTC