W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > May 2019

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

From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 00:20:10 +0000
To: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>
CC: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Daniel Burnett <daniel.burnett@consensys.net>
Message-ID: <007EB18E-0B2D-42CA-A7DB-A169221473F3@microsoft.com>
> I personally think that registries may be sufficiently different from Evergreen Standards that considering
> a different process for them may be warranted.

Thanks, I hadn’t thought of the scenario where a CG would maintain a registry.  That makes sense to me, since presumably registries don’t have IPR issues, need horizontal review, need a heavyweight consensus process, etc.   But they probably need some sort of process to ensure they accurately describe reality, and the CG “process” not prescriptive enough.

From: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 2:55 PM
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Cc: "jeff@w3.org" <jeff@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Daniel Burnett <daniel.burnett@consensys.net>
Subject: 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 <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>> wrote:
Several are registries.  We've been treating Registries as a subtype of ER, but discussion in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fw3process%2Fissues%2F79&data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Champion%40microsoft.com%7C7a1894e3d1ad4cf52ca908d6dd6dd101%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636939861072364249&sdata=Eb3G0vjEML7b0OnnngaMCKOhblzc8FR6%2Byj%2F4hYPsb4%3D&reserved=0> 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 warranted.

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

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2019 00:20:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:51 UTC