Re: Verifiable Claims Task Force Summary of Concerns

> On Nov 18, 2015, at 10:50 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

[snip]
> 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?

The task force will not create a specification (per the list of deliverables [1]). Therefore, there are no
patent licensing expectations and from that perspective it doesn’t matter whether the task force
operates within the IG or the CG. Therefore, I do not think IPR is an issue.

Nor will the task force be reviewing specifications of any WGs, so disclosure is not a material issue.

[1] https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Deliverables


>    * 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.

The CLA patent licensing obligations only apply to Specifications (and this task force will not
be creating Specifications).


>    * 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.

As is discussed in the task force proposal, I think it’s valuable to focus on stating the problems rather than
particular solutions. The Credentials CG has been thinking about the problem space for some time, and others
have as well in other venues (and through previous efforts). i think it will be most productive to bring
people together and first get agreement on the problems where W3C can add value and that are important
to address for the Web.

Given the Credentials CG’s focus on a particular technological approach, I would favor either
an IG task force or a new CG. I agree with the CG’s observation that it is likely that the same people
from the CG will participate wherever the task force operates. The challenge, then, is finding a way
to bring in people who are not already in the CG. And it seems like having clear (and likely narrow)
problem statements will increase the likelihood of generating interest outside the CG. Those will be
useful hooks for people to determine whether they think those are problems worth solving.

Ian

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447