RE: Verifiable Claims Task Force Summary of Concerns

HI Manu:

Nice summary.  

Addressing only one point, from my knowledge.  Regarding creating a Task Force in the IG, you wrote:
>    * Waive IPR requirements to participate in the Task Force.
>     Documents will be produced by Credentials CG under CG IPR policy
>      by people that have already signed off on CG IPR policy.
>    * Invite any participant that wants to be involved and is not
>      disruptive to the work of the group (constructive criticism is
>      ok, trolling is not)

I want to say that waiving IPR seems like a non-starter.  I don't know who actually has the authority to do that, even if they wanted to.  Obviously, if W3M or (cringing) the chairs have that right, then I will gladly stand corrected.  The main IPR requirement for IG is disclosure[1].

Given all that, the chairs have the ability to help create this task force through invited experts with the permission of W3M.

Best regards,
David

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure


-----Original Message-----
From: Manu Sporny [mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 11:51 PM
To: Web Payments IG
Subject: Verifiable Claims Task Force Summary of Concerns

Hi all,

Please make sure you read this email before the Nov. 23rd meeting regarding the Verifiable Claims Task Force.

I'd like to end the meeting on Monday with a firm decision on where to have the discussion around the Verifiable Claims (aka credentials,
attestations) work. I'm concerned that the participants in the discussion won't have enough background on the proposal and we'll end up further delaying the ability to have a conversation around this work.

In an attempt to prep the group for success, this email is a primer for the discussion that led to the current Verifiable Claims Task Force
proposal:

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce


After integrating input from the Web Payments IG, the Credentials CG, and W3C staff, these options have been identified as having a *vanishingly small chance* of achieving consensus:

1. Perform the Verifiable Claims research as the Credentials CG (citing
   the contested non-neutrality of the group).
2. Perform the Verifiable Claims research as a new Community Group
   (citing redundancy with the Credentials CG's goals).

These options seem to have the *greatest chance* of achieving consensus:

1. Create a Verifiable Claims Task Force in the Web Payments IG with an
   open invitation to participate to an inclusive set of invited
   experts.
2. Create a Verifiable Claims Task Force in the Credentials CG that is
   narrowly scoped to discuss the items in the proposal.

Either approaches above can be used to complete the deliverables in the Verifiable Claims Task Force proposal, so here are the main points of contention at the moment:

Verifiable Claims Task Force in the Web Payments IG
  * Pros
    * Perception of a neutral environment
    * Only needs a Web Payments IG straw poll to make the decision
  * Cons
    * Potential IPR issues for W3C non-members, do we waive IPR to get
      broad participation?
    * Potential non-participation if only W3C members can participate
  * Ideas to counteract cons
    * Waive IPR requirements to participate in the Task Force.
      Documents will be produced by Credentials CG under CG IPR policy
      by people that have already signed off on CG IPR policy.
    * Invite any participant that wants to be involved and is not
      disruptive to the work of the group (constructive criticism is
      ok, trolling is not)

Verifiable Claims Task Force in the Credentials CG
  * Pros
    * No restrictions on participating in the Task Force
    * Supporting systems (mailing list/telecon/minutes) already setup
      and operating
    * Clear IPR policy
    * Limited scope to address non-neutrality perception
  * Cons
    * May not address non-neutrality perception
  * Ideas to counteract cons
    * Specifically invite people that have raised concerns about the
      work to document their concerns and focus on their input
      specifically (specifically, do not argue against their input)

If you have any other ideas or thoughts about either option, or the proposal itself, please send them to the list so we can get as much discussion as possible done before the call on Monday.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/

Received on Thursday, 19 November 2015 14:09:58 UTC