Re: Comments on draft charter [Was: Agenda: Verifiable Claims Teleconference - Tuesday, March 8th 2016]

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Stone, Matt <matt.stone@pearson.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 for casting goals with a positive outcome -- "improve" is almost always better than "reduce" but...
> 
> these are good generalized goals, but they don't serve the problem statements. - fraud and identity theft is not in our problem statement, why would we have a goal about it?  The goals we're pursuing need to address the problems we're identifying.
> 
> can we make a goal like
> - set the foundation for uniform access and share-ability of claims by providing a standards driven, extensible data model for claim data

Hi Matt,

Personally, I find Manu’s goals give me an immediate sense of relevance to things I understand without knowing anything about credentials: usability, fraud, cost, etc.

Your statement does not give me —the credentials novice— the same clarity. The statement may be very relevant and compelling for someone who is already familiar
with the group’s vision.

I do agree with your point, however, about improving the link between the problem statements and the goals.

For example, something like this:

 * Today people may be reluctant to conduct certain types of transactions (e.g., high value payments) on the Web because of concerns of fraud and liability.
 * While companies may develop 1-off solutions to these issues, the very nature of the problem is communication, and therefore proprietary approaches
    limit scalability and increase costs.
 * One goal of this group is to reduce fraud due to identity theft by by establishing a standard way to cryptographically verify 3rd party claims.

Ian

> 
> is there a way assert some kind of evidence of success of the goals we express?
> 
> section 3.2: obviously in "Security is obviously critical"​ sounds condescending

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