Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-03-01

Thanks to Dave Longley for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:

http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-03-01/

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-03-01

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2016Feb/0080.html
Topics:
  1. Review Web Payments IG Vote on VCTF
  2. Next Steps (W3C AC Meeting)
  3. Draft Charter Proposal
  4. Use Cases Document
Organizer:
  Manu Sporny
Scribe:
  Dave Longley
Present:
  Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Eric Korb, David I. Lehn, Shane 
  McCarron, Daniel C. Burnett, Heather Vescent, Brian Sletten, 
  David Ezell, Nate Otto, John Tibbetts, Jim Goodell, Matt Collier, 
  Bill DeLorenzo, Gregg Kellogg, Colleen Kennedy, Peter Hofman, 
  Rebecca Simmons
Audio:
  http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-03-01/audio.ogg

Dave Longley is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  Any updates/changes to the agenda?
None

Topic: Review Web Payments IG Vote on VCTF

Manu Sporny: 
  https://www.w3.org/2016/02/22-wpay-minutes.html#item09
Manu Sporny:  So, how did the VCTF presentation go at the F2F?
Manu Sporny:  David I'd like to hear your thoughts on this after 
  I give an overview. David is the co-chair for the Web Payments 
  Interest Group at W3C.
Manu Sporny:  We had a vote, its was 20+ (we stopped counting at 
  23) in favor, zero opposed to writing a draft charter and 
  gathering use cases to be presented to everyone we've interviewed 
  and W3C membership in general.
Manu Sporny:  Really good news, we get to go to the next stage in 
  the process.
Manu Sporny:  We need to circulate the charter and get feedback 
  on it. If it's been killed off at this point it's because the W3C 
  membership doesn't want to proceed.
Eric Korb:  [Plays clapping audio]
Manu Sporny:  Yes, congrats to everyone. We learned a lot of 
  things at the F2F in terms of understanding why people have been 
  fighting this, not all that I can share right now, but some of 
  those concerns are that it's a hard problem and the chances of 
  achieving it aren't as high as we'd like. People think the work 
  is really important but there's a non-trivial chance of failure 
  even if we a very limited charter and scope of work.
Manu Sporny:  Anything you want to add David?
David I. Lehn:  No, I think you've got that right. I think your 
  statement was a tad on the grim side, a lot of people do think 
  this work is important. I want to express that almost everyone in 
  the room deeply appreciates the amount of work and due diligence 
  this group has done. If it weren't for this herculean effort that 
  this task force is putting in we probably wouldn't be where we 
  are so congrats on that.
David I. Lehn:  As far as where we are, this grain runs very 
  deep. We should go ahead and create a charter for review, it's a 
  calculated risk -- if the charter goes too far there will be 
  pushback and if not far enough, not good enough to get us 
  started. Speaking as myself, it's important that we try to find 
  that comfortable spot, because once the work has begun it's a 
  whole different ball game. Right now the IG has to do a balancing 
  act but once the group starts it becomes semi-autonomous and 
  doesn't go through a middle person. So people shouldn't feel like 
  it's forever that you'll be under the shadow of the IG.
Shane McCarron:  I just wanted to say that there's a thing we all 
  need to keep in mind about W3C or any standards organization. 
  It's important that they consider their reputation and it's 
  reasonable for them to consider it in the balance of all of the 
  other reasons for doing work. It's not the ultimate one but part 
  of the mix. If we perceive resistance part of that is the risk of 
  failure. Failure doesn't look good, what if you held a party and 
  nobody came, what if you built a standard and nobody came. It's 
  happened before. We want to make certain whatever we bring 
  forward we have a high confidence of success in.
Manu Sporny:  Anyone have any more thoughts?
David I. Lehn:  To add to Shane, reputation is everything and 
  I've been at W3C long enough to be there during the years when 
  there was huge amounts of turmoil where the AC didn't believe 
  that the WG and IG weren't doing things they should be doing and 
  that's not pleasant. I think Jeff Jaffe is in our favor here -- 
  he can seem hard nosed, but one of the things that's great about 
  him, speaking for myself, if Jeff is ok with what you're doing, 
  the AC will be fine. In some ways that makes it a little easier 
  and less contentious. There should be some focus on Jeff in all 
  this.
Manu Sporny:  Agreed, great input.
Manu Sporny: 
  https://www.w3.org/2016/02/22-wpay-minutes.html#item09
Manu Sporny:  One of the things that came out of the meeting is 
  that we may be handed off to a different domain lead. So perhaps 
  better done in another location. We learned that Wendy Seltzer, 
  the current domain lead, she said that we may want to be handed 
  off to another area and on top of that, she is really concerned 
  that we are saying this is a generalized verifiable claims 
  solution. She's said why not just focus on education. When she 
  said that, the US Fed Rep said "No, that would be a mistake to 
  focus on just one vertical, you need to take financial and 
  healthcare into account because otherwise you'll get a point 
  solution." General feedback from the group was to make it as 
  broad as possible, but make sure people from those areas are in 
  the group.
Daniel C. Burnett: Makes sense.  While it's better to support 3 
  communities than one, it's better to support one than none.
Manu Sporny:  We're going to write a charter in a fairly general 
  way, circulate it in the various communities and if it turns out 
  if one of those communities won't send someone to participate in 
  the work, we'll need to remove those communities from the 
  charter. If only the education orgs respond and no one else 
  responds, we'll need to focus the charter on education. W3C 
  management has said that that's what they can support and get 
  behind. If we're going to make grand claims and only education 
  folks are in the room, it isn't all inclusive and we can't take 
  other communities desires into account.
Manu Sporny:  Any concerns?
Manu Sporny:  It is up to us to make sure there is broad buy in 
  to the charter because otherwise it will be limited to whichever 
  orgs want to participate.
Heather Vescent:  That makes a lot of sense from your 
  perspective. My concern is having the charter, if we end up going 
  down the path of only thinking of one community in mind, the only 
  one that can participate, then how do we socialize these ideas in 
  other communities that we want to utilize this at some point in 
  the future. I'm new to the W3C process ... this is a long term 
  plan, not a 6 month plan, it's like 10 years.
Manu Sporny:  Yup.
Heather Vescent:  My interest is in banking and finance and 
  there's a lot of politics here, how do we both be specific and 
  focused to show success but as it occurs also bring in others 
  into the process.
Manu Sporny:  We're to the point where we have to get orgs to 
  commit. Once we have a charter we have to get them to commit. 
  It's a people skills thing, each of us has deep contacts into 
  these areas and we need to show the charter to those people and 
  ask them to join because it won't happen if they don't.
Manu Sporny:  Heather, you taking that charter out to your 
  contacts would really help. You identifying someone in your own 
  orgs who can come and do the work, not a 10 year commitment, but 
  6-12 months, that would really help. We're focused on the next 
  4-5 months and that's the start of the first technical group. 
  Once that starts then we can talk about the vision and 10 years 
  and all that.
Heather Vescent: That all makes sense. Thanks.
Manu Sporny:  To be clear we do need people to understand the 
  vision as well. There will be a link to the charter, it will be 
  public, there will be use cases. Each of us will go to finance or 
  healthcare or education or gov't and tell them to participate.
Manu Sporny:  Any other questions points?
None

Topic: Next Steps (W3C AC Meeting)

Manu Sporny:  There is a W3C AC meeting happening in Boston at 
  the end of this month. That's our next deadlin.e
Manu Sporny: 
  https://www.w3.org/Member/Meeting/2016ac/March/Overview.html
Manu Sporny:  The hope is that we have a charter and use cases 
  ready to be socialized at least a week before that.
Manu Sporny:  That's 15-20 days from now.
Manu Sporny:  We need to get a set of docs together to start 
  socializing among the advisory committee. They cannot give us any 
  time to talk about it at the meeting because it's too late in the 
  process, meaning we can't get up on stage and talk about it. But 
  we can circulate it among the forum and say we'll be there to 
  talk about it and have hallway discussions with key people. The 
  more people we have at W3C having discussions the better. Right 
  now it's only David Ezell and myself.
David I. Lehn:  I'm going.
Manu Sporny:  I don't know if anyone else will be going.
Shane McCarron: It is possible that I will be there if all the 
  stars align.
Manu Sporny:  We're going to try and do hallway conversation and 
  talk with people about it and start building momentum there and 
  in parallel contact the interviewees and talk about the charter 
  and use cases and get input from people who gave input on the 
  survey, etc.
Manu Sporny:  We've got a lot of things going, a lot of 
  communication to do over the next month and a half. That's what 
  we're shooting for.
Manu Sporny:  Any questions about the meeting?
Manu Sporny:  Any questions about the purpose of the AC meeting 
  or what we need to get done by the AC meeting time?

Topic: Draft Charter Proposal

Manu Sporny: http://w3c.github.io/vctf/charter/proposal.html
Manu Sporny:  As some of you know, we took a real quick first 
  stab at the charter, link in IRC.
Manu Sporny:  What would be really good if the folks on the phone 
  would ... if you do nothing else over the next few weeks, I know 
  everyone is busy, but please read the charter and provide your 
  input on it. We need the VCTF to really look at the charter and 
  whip it into shape. Grammatical stuff, ideas, whatever. This is 
  the document we're going to be circulating to folks.
Manu Sporny:  We don't want anything in there to be 
  controversial. We want people to say "Yes this is important and 
  yes I will join the work."
Eric Korb:  What are the deadlines again?
Manu Sporny:  15 Days from now we need the charter done. By the 
  end of this week, get your comments in on the charter.
Eric Korb: Thanks
Manu Sporny:  So we can rev the charter. Then by the 15th we're 
  going to circulate the charter with the advisory committee (400+ 
  people).
Shane McCarron:  So no pressure :)
Manu Sporny:  So we have a week to get comments in and a week to 
  rev it.
Shane McCarron:  Use cases in shape in the same time period?
Manu Sporny:  Yes, we'll talk about that next on agenda.
Manu Sporny:  Just to remind everyone, the charter is just a data 
  format and set of syntaxes and a note specifying how these data 
  models should be integrated into existing attribute exchange 
  protocols and/or a recommendations on how to change those 
  protocols and/or a new protocol needs to exist because, for 
  example, the existing ones aren't privacy enhancing.
Manu Sporny:  So that's doing an analysis on how this stuff fits 
  into the existing ecosystem today or if we need to build a new 
  one.
Manu Sporny:  Any questions?
Manu Sporny:  Any concerns about the direction we're taking?
None

Topic: Use Cases Document

Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/
Manu Sporny:  Shane, Dan, Gregg, Brian did a fantastic job 
  getting this into shape. Thank you everyone, thanks for getting 
  it updated Shane.
Manu Sporny:  Whittling it down to 4-8 use cases is what we need 
  to do next.
Manu Sporny:  We want to keep that these limited just for the 
  advisory committee to consider and these people will give the 
  charter 5 minutes of time and the use cases maybe 5 minutes, so 
  we need to be very clear and concise on what we're asking them to 
  consider.
Brian Sletten:  What is the interplay between the proposed 
  charter, the potential set of industries that may/may not be 
  involved, and the use cases we're considering in this initial go.
Manu Sporny:  Great question, I don't know. We definitely have 
  education at the table, banking and finance can be at the table, 
  the use cases should definitely have that. Healthcare is more of 
  a stretch, Eric we need to lean heavily on the folks we know 
  there but it may be hard to get them to the table.
Shane McCarron: I think the document can reflect requirements for 
  all of those sectors
Manu Sporny:  I think that's kind of the use cases we could focus 
  on. That's my personal opinion, what do others thing?
Manu Sporny:  Should we downplay some of those, focus on them?
David I. Lehn:  I just wanted to say that it sounds like a 
  reasonable list and growing it too large works against purposes 
  because of the time and the need to not be boiling the ocean.
Shane McCarron:  So a couple of things. First, the use case 
  documents today talks about five different areas of requirements. 
  To recap, the document is structured as requirements and 
  supporting scenarios for them. We have user story backing for 
  requirements. They are ordered so finance comes first where 
  relevant. Then there are five categories, issuing, consuming, 
  managing, endorsing/sharing.
Shane McCarron:  I think we can take our sharing and managing for 
  the purposes of this charter. Because we're only focused on the 
  data structure
Shane McCarron:  We're not talking about protocol. If they are 
  talking about protocol we can take out. We can get down to 8, 
  sure, can we get down to the scenarios that back those 8 or fewer 
  requirements, I think we can, but my goal would be to try and 
  cover all the industries in those scenarios, even if they aren't 
  at the table. If someone wants to show up I want them to be in 
  there. I don't want to leave that out of this document unless the 
  rest of the group disagrees with me.
Manu Sporny:  So I agree with almost everything you said if not 
  everything. To put a finer point on it, charter is limited to 
  format/model/syntax, not protocol.
Shane McCarron: 
  http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/#uc-issuing-verifiability
Shane McCarron: I would also like to develop a second document - 
  extended use cases, that covers the rest of the "vision" so that 
  we know what we would like to address eventually
Manu Sporny:  The use cases that we come up with have to talk 
  more about expressing the claims vs. getting them from point A to 
  point B. In the same vein, we don't want to accidentally put 
  something into the data model so it makes it impossible to meet 
  some protocol use cases that are coming down the line. Thinking 
  about endorsement or counter signatures or unlinkability, or 
  thinking about delegated authorization and how that works, and 
  all of that could have requirements on the data model and syntax 
  and get that into the use cases because if it's not in there 
  people may say "that's not in the use cases" later and that could 
  cause some trouble.
Manu Sporny:  Any other questions/comments on how to address the 
  use cases?
Dave Longley: +1 To manu
Shane McCarron:  I don't want to lose our existing use cases 
  because there's a lot of data we've gathered and I want to have 
  that vision ... the rest of the thing, not for AC consumption but 
  for whatever. I don't want to lose track of that because we all 
  know there's more work than just data model and syntax.
Shane McCarron:  An appendix makes the document big and it could 
  be intimidating.
Shane McCarron:  Discussion for the task force to make?
Manu Sporny:  It's really important to give people an idea of 
  vision, I'm wondering if we want to create another document that 
  is specifically use cases for a credentials WG, here's a charter 
  that goes along with it, and that's all we're asking people to 
  approve right now, and then link to a larger doc. The idea of an 
  appendix is good, but I'm worried that people may be scared off 
  by it if it's attached to anything that is attached to a really 
  constrained charter. People have a fear of complexity and it 
  pushes people to not vote for something. Having a big use cases 
  doc could generate that fear of complexity in the AC reps because 
  they won't take the time to say what's not in scope and what is 
  in scope for the charter. They will just jump to a bunch of 
  conclusions. What about saying "This doc is all you need to pay 
  attention to now" And then we bury the larger use cases somewhere 
  in the charter or elsewhere.
Shane McCarron:  We have that opencredentials area and we could 
  put all the use cases there, and say the community has looked at 
  that and it this large thing, and for this charter we have this 
  small thing now.
Shane McCarron:  Restating, maybe we could use the opencreds 
  space, the thing we have for use cases for the big document, the 
  vision. This smaller document lives wherever, I don't know where 
  it lives for stuff like this. It's not an IG deliverable, or a 
  community deliverable. Hmm.
Manu Sporny:  Sounds like a question for David. The larger use 
  cases doc should be in the community now. I don't see it moving 
  away from that yet. I didn't hear consensus where the charter and 
  the smaller use cases doc should be placed. Does it belong in the 
  IG or in the CG for now?
David I. Lehn:  It should probably be in the IG space as this is 
  an IG task force. That may be a pain, but with the original use 
  cases for the IG we pulled that onto the W3C server. If it's 
  easier on github I defer to you, Shane.
Shane McCarron:  I think we can take it off line. Doesn't matter 
  where it lives, just has to be somewhere.
David Ezell:  The closer it is the better.
Shane McCarron:  Makes sense.
Manu Sporny:  I have a strong preference to put it in the IG 
  workspace, the VCTF is in the IG. That group needs to have some 
  ownership over this document. The IG itself. And then there are 
  concerns around IPR but I don't think there are any IPR issues 
  with this stuff, so let's not make that a reason to have a 
  problem with it because if we put it in the IG it's very clear, 
  no issues.
Shane McCarron: Is the wpig space under the w3c space on github?
Manu Sporny:  No IPR issues.
Shane McCarron: I found it
Shane McCarron: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig
Manu Sporny:  We may want to circulate back with the IG and make 
  sure they are ok with that -- meaning putting the charter 
  proposal and the small use cases doc in WPIG space.
David Ezell:  Ok. We'll let them know. They voted to have the 
  task force so they are ok with it.
Manu Sporny:  Any other questions/concerns about use cases or 
  what we're doing over the next couple of weeks?
Manu Sporny:  So let's assign actions then.
Manu Sporny:  I will take the lead on the charter.
Manu Sporny:  Please send feedback on the mailing list, the 
  VCTF/Credentials CG/ or WPIG mailing list, whichever you have 
  access to.
Shane McCarron: Let's make a top level VCTF folder?
Manu Sporny:  Feedback on the charter.
Manu Sporny:  So the call next week will focus on comments on the 
  charter and the use cases.
Manu Sporny:  So also feedback on the use cases.
Manu Sporny:  Then we will rinse and repeat until we send out the 
  charter and use cases.
Heather Vescent: Sounds good to me. I'm in.
Heather Vescent: I also have a piece about this coming out in 
  American Banker soon.
Nate Otto: I can socialize in education as well.
Manu Sporny:  Myself and David will do retail/etc. We'll rely on 
  Eric/John to talk to education.
John Tibbetts: +1 On pinging education community
Manu Sporny:  Any other comments/questions/concerns?
Manu Sporny:  Everyone have a clear idea of the plan moving 
  forward?
Manu Sporny:  Great, thanks everyone, congrats to all on making 
  it to the next stage in the process.
Heather Vescent: Thanks all!
Manu Sporny:  We have a very short time frame, let's try and see 
  what we can get done in that time frame and we'll get feedback at 
  the end of the month on how we're doing. All chat next week.

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2016 17:30:43 UTC