Re: Verifiable Claims dissenting opinions now public (was Re: Web Payments IG approves Verifiable Claims to proceed to W3C Management)

oh; was reminded of https://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/w3c10-HowItAllStarted/

May help put some of the concepts described and/or referred to below in
better context...

The concept of 'incubation' and/or the innovation curve - is particularly
used, in perhaps a less than fortunate manner depending on what people are
attempting to achieve.

Tim.H.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 at 23:27 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> NOTES ON MINUTES
> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#item04
>
> - The dissenting opinions came from Google (Chris Wilson), Microsoft (Mike Champion),
> and the W3C Technology and Society Domain leader (Wendy Seltzer).
>
> - In general (and I hope to get more complete statements from each organisation
> in the next month or so):
>
> NOTES ON SLIDES[1]
> Slide 5 (the pie-graph) is a good representation, yet still debatable due
> to the sample methodology, IMHO.
> Slide 6 relates to the politics of the process. Therein perhaps opening-up
> the process to unnecessary conflict due to issues outside of scope (as
> noted in the simplistic form - “not in scope”)
> Slide 7; same issue as slide 5
> Slide 8: hasn’t this been updated since? The diagram is correct on most
> levels, yet, may unnecessarily over-simply
> Slide 9: denotes WIP (work in process) nature of the works.  I think
> underestimating the scope of work is unreasonable as would be
> underestimating the importance of the work and the under-resourced nature
> the work is currently inhibited by on a pragmatic developmental level;
> therein, means to attain capability and acceptance through available
> means.  This in-turn should not (IMHO) negate the importance of the work.
> Slide 10: seems important particularly when reviewing the timeline of
> alternative solutions (ie: precedent materials, strategy employed by
> entities/agents, et.al).
>
> I note; i was engaged by the then Web Payments works sometime ago[2]
> having been introduced to the work through other efforts first noted in W3C
> Lists in separate areas[3], however a lot of time has passed and should it
> become necessary for me to notate the variance and development since then;
> i’m happy to do so.
>
> Newer W3C related works form alternatives that modify the paradigms beyond
> something that the W3C was established to consider[4] and the notion of
> ‘conflict of interest’ becomes quite complex when considering the
> methodology of appropriate response.  I ponder whether architectural works
> need to be considered at executive level of the W3C in consideration of the
> change in challenges between the web as it was when W3C was formed; to that
> of it’s appropriation today, upon what has considered to relate to Human
> Rights[5].  Herein also, is the importance of the IPR strategy made
> available by W3C, where related considerations have been made by TimBL[6]
> whilst being put to Jeff[7][8] some time ago. Since then of course,
> MIT/TimBL/RWW/Sandro/Andrei/Henry/Melvin/Kingsley/(etc) work has been
> considered meritorious[9] by others, in which the concern becomes how these
> dynamics may be best supported by W3C and indeed; the methodology employed
> in furthering works as a neutral, global standards body.
>
> SLIDE 12: i would argue the lack of budget in-turn results in less than
> ideal outcomes.  The implications of these works, even simply from an
> Australian Petition Heritage point of view[10] (forward looking) may change
> the nature of our capacities as humans whom cooperate and collaborate upon
> this new communications medium, WWW.  I do not see a strict binding to such
> underlying protocols, yet much like the disruption that has happened
> throughout the economic world; the management of these works seems, IMHO,
> to be imperative, in the interests of much broader things than simply the
> laws relating to the acts of an agent for a corporation governed by a
> particular jurisdiction, as is further contemplated by international
> contract law and related instruments.  Herein; i question the underlying
> issues pertaining to the relatively low involvement numbers and therein;
> scalability of involvement and related factors that may unintentionally or
> unfortunately inhibit this, and other related works within the
> Linked-Data[11] capable domain.
>
> NOTES RE: MINUTES[12]
> RE: PROPOSAL: I think the proposal is exceptional work given the available
> resources.
>
> I also note; the Dialogue[13] contains no audio-reference but simply the
> notation taken and the IRC logs seem unavailable to non-W3C Members
> (therein also; i am a community member); this in-turn debilitates my
> ability to understand the context or persona related aspects of the events;
> which i think is particularly debilitating for the uninitiated, who may
> seek to become interested in these works and thereafter seek to undertake
> due-diligence surrounding the status and position of various stakeholders.
>
> With regard to the ‘Charter’ document[14] given the organisational
> structure and operational capabilities of W3C it may be better to state i
> the problem statement, rather than ‘I am a citizen of the USA’; that, ‘i am
> a citizen of Australia’ or ‘i am a refugee from Saudi Arabia or Iran’, or a
> sex-worker in a foreign country originally from Ukraine, et.al.  Whilst
> this distinction is semantic in nature; it is probably helpful for the
> uninitiated…
>
> Whilst an array of international diplomacy exists, this dynamics of this
> should, IMHO, be out-of-scope.  We are trying to support WWW for Humans[15]
> and as defined[16][17], IMHO, and perhaps the most universal document
> defining this concepts has been defined by the UN[18], as so beautifully
> produced in a variety of localised media products such as those from the
> US[19] and UK[20].  I am yet to understand how the dissenting organisations
> have made best-efforts to consider the merits of the proposal and its
> underlying considerations more holistically, yet given the recent events
> with regard to the progress of the Web-Payments works[21] consider the
> issue to also be outside of scope for the contributors of the Credentials
> Spec; who in-turn depend upon others to nurture the grounds on which we
> make footprints (in the presence of god, imho, without being distinct about
> the book or specified language therein).
>
> With regard to encryption methodologies, my understanding is that the
> design principles provide flexibility pending participation of dependencies
> (ie: product vendors) to support these forms of end-to-end capabilities,
> within context of particular requirements (ie: KYC/AML, Magna Carta or
> constitution related sovereignty implications, Et.al.)
>
> RE: XML, JSON, etc.  This appears to be specified push-back upon the
> concept of decentralised capabilities / linked-data.  This should be
> considered by the relevant groups (ie: other linked-data groups who are
> capable of providing assistance in defining the differentiators between
> xml, json (et.al) vs. linked-data related syntax / serialisation
> methodologies).  Whether the specification is defined to be EXCLUSIVELY
> json-ld is a separate issue again; and something that may be handled by
> vendors who create web-services built into web-services, ie: Any23[22].
>
> Re: implementations without HTTP-SIGNATURES - seems kinda pointless.  It’s
> like taking the teeth out of the capability...
>
> Re:
> <Padler_> Chris A: This is not a protocol, or a cryptographic format, or
> an identity...
> <Magda> +1 to Chris comments on security/privacy
> <Padler_> Chris A: I need this building block to be solid so that I can
> build cryptographic signatures and protocols on top of this...
> <Padler_> Chris A: This is a fundamental model for other work to
> progress...
>
> I find these comments really interesting. The Concept of ‘Human Identity’
> is really very complex, but certainly involves ‘verifiable claimed’ made by
> 3rd parties upon a human entity, who in-turn may be subject to ‘agent’
> concepts in relation to things they create or actors they act for.  In-turn
> i also believe a SoLiD[23] foundation is in the works, however i think the
> use of a specified trademark like term, understanding also other uses of
> the term within software development[24], to be unfortunate at best.
>
> Later comments review JOSE / JWT which i do not believe relates well to
> Linked-Data?  Considerations may be made thereafter, pending analysis of
> the concepts embodied within these technological differentiations…
>
> With regard to Use-Cases, which have been praised, i ponder the
> alternative technological methods for the delivery of the same use-cases
> using the alternatively preferred methods (ie; JOSE/JWT) and the
> delineation of interest-areas held within these concepts, as may be
> considered by the broader community.
>
> With regard to the concept that is noted continuously about ‘incubation’ a
> number of factors are involved; including but not exclusive to,
>
> * TimeSpan (ie: concept through to outcomes)
> * Resources (eg: capabilities, means, investment, etc.).
>
> These aspects are quite different in nature and do certainly become
> impacted by commercial dynamics that can have quite different influences to
> that considered by the merits of disciplines such as Web Science[25].  W3C
> in-turn might seemingly have a complicated situation on its hands as it
> seeks to separate the prosperous development of W3C / WWW, vs. the
> market-force related changes that have occurred since the inception /
> initiation of W3C, vs. the challenges of today and how they are forged in a
> world where the troubles of the past, are past.  We have new problems that
> require support in different ways.  Given the innovative nature of the
> Credentials work (and more broadly, RWW / Linked-Data related works) i
> ponder whether it is reasonable for the Credentials Team to undertake this
> burden, or whether it is more of a W3C issue that needs to be resolved at
> an executive level…?
>
> Implicitly, other areas surrounding the security methodologies are of
> course involved; yet somewhat out of scope for the credentials work, as far
> as i’m aware, yet nonetheless - are an important consideration.
>
> This in-turn appears to be a very difficult and complex matter to be
> considered in which guidance is suggested by ‘higher powers’ as to refine
> the complex nature of the ‘vote outcome’ and how that applies in relation
> to broader policy settings that in-turn may be beyond the scope of W3C
> organisationally, yet i’m really not sure how all that kinda stuff works.
> I just do my best, with my ‘footsteps’...
> MICROSOFT
> * Mike (Microsoft) felt that the work was largely duplicative of the
>   JOSE JWT work and it hasn't been incubated enough. His feedback can
>   be found here:
>
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Mar/0002.html
>
> I seek clarification surrounding the aspects noted in the minutes and the
> concerns raised by “Michael Champion” that “It’s highly unlikely that W3C
> will staff the work”.  I do not see this being confirmed by W3C as yet, a
> modern reference is welcomed…  In-turn his concerns are duly noted and
> shared.  IMHO, W3C should staff the work and self-funding the work is less
> than ideal.  Yet the circumstances for this position is unclear to me, and
> clarity surrounding why these statements have been made and the current
> position of W3C is welcomed as to better understand the context of support
> from W3C as it stands at the time of receipt of this correspondence.
>
> With respect the the comment about ‘real skin in the game’ i think that
> needs to be better clarified / defined…
>
> With respect to the second point made by denoting a ‘-’, it must be noted
> that the WWW as it is today (often referred to as Web 2.0) is an evolution
> of prior works, that at the time of inception - also did not have
> investment.  It is important to note the distinction between those who have
> undertaken innovative works at a time where no-investment (or relatively
> minor means to put food on the table) existed for something ‘new’ vs. other
> works far further down the track of the innovation curve[26] and the role
> in which various humans play, in various tasks in various frameworks.  It
> is exactly these forms of considerations that the Verifiable Claims works
> (and more broadly W3 Credentials CG team) have been making great efforts
> over an extended, and interactive timespan to respond to what are
> reasonable considerations.  Yet also, these considerations have less than
> ideal levels of funding which in-turn relates to the former consideration
> of the nature of the innovation-curve and how actors play various roles.
>
> With regard to the third point raised; i question what representations
> have been made by MS with regard to the future potential of these works for
> various government projects and whether they’d be interested in being
> supplied services relating to the utility of these future standards (and
> current works) should they become better incubated / supported by parties
> such as MS.  The term ‘credential’ also appears to over-simplify the
> technology capabilities offerings via various services.  Perhaps this can
> be better explained as to avoid confusion between one technology / science
> offering and others, et.al.
>
> Re: bottom line - i think the statements are overly combative.  If they
> believe alterations should be made, then suggestions, i assume, are
> welcomed.  Ideally this occurs within the CG environment given the
> stakeholders and the current means in which accessibility to participation
> in the development of these forms of very important works is made available
> to humans, regardless of their role, representation or contractual
> responsibilities at the time of authorship of any correspondence relating
> to the development of these very important works.
>
> GOOGLE
> "Chris (Google) agreed with Mike's position and felt that the work needed
> to be incubated more. He also felt that the work should be constrained to
> Education. His feedback can be found here:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Mar/0003.html
> "
>
> Comments made by Chris Wilson suggest simply incubation (the desire to see
> additional resources applied to the works?).  Perhaps some form of support
> can be provided as to provide a compromise between the various groups.  I
> understand an MIT team is currently undertaking related work[27] who whilst
> having been furnished some support[28] may well serve as a curator of
> decentralised incubation support for these works more broadly and in-turn
> support the comments made by Chris, whilst enabling the work to progress
> with a broader basis of support, development and capability.
>
> With respect to Wendy’s Comments; i refer to the above considerations, and
> wish decision makers my best wishes with figuring out the next steps in
> developing these works for the betterment of humanity.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Timothy Holborn.
>
>
> ________________
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mL0MsPpdxdKiYFWVIyGVOFzypBsjylxepACN2MYw-yg/edit#slide=id.p
> [2]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014Mar/0070.html
> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Nov/0000.html
> [4] https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704
> [5]
> http://webfoundation.org/2014/12/recognise-the-internet-as-a-human-right-says-sir-tim-berners-lee-as-he-launches-annual-web-index/
> [6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2014Jul/0040.html
> [7] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2015Aug/0019.html
> [8] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2015Aug/0020.html
> [9] http://www.csail.mit.edu/solid_mastercard_gift
> [10]
> http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_11_-_Petitions
> [11] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
> [12] https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#item04
> [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#item04
> [14] https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/
> [15]
> http://webtv.un.org/watch/tim-berners-lee-human-rights-day-2013-20-years-working-for-your-rights/2895794933001/
> [16] http://whois.domaintools.com/w3.org
> [17] http://whois.domaintools.com/w3c.org
> [18] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
> [19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiFIu_z4dM8
> [20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRGhrYmUjU4
> [21] http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
> [22] https://any23.apache.org/
> [23] https://github.com/solid/
> [24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_(object-oriented_design)
> [25] http://www.webscience.org/
> [26]
> http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_rogers_innovation_adoption_curve.html
> [27] https://github.com/solid/
> [28] http://www.csail.mit.edu/solid_mastercard_gift
>
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 at 15:46 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Cheers.  Will follow-up once I've had time to review.
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, 4:25 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/16/2016 05:43 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>>> > I'm still waiting to hear back about that 1 - 2 pager that helps us
>>> > understand their considerations better..
>>> >
>>> > Unless there is a link I've missed?
>>>
>>> The Web Payments Interest Group face-to-face meeting minutes went public
>>> earlier today, you can try to glean as much as you can from the minutes
>>> here:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#item04
>>>
>>> The dissenting opinions came from Google (Chris Wilson), Microsoft (Mike
>>> Champion), and the W3C Technology and Society Domain leader (Wendy
>>> Seltzer).
>>>
>>> In general (and I hope to get more complete statements from each
>>> organization in the next month or so):
>>>
>>> * Mike (Microsoft) felt that the work was largely duplicative of the
>>>   JOSE JWT work and it hasn't been incubated enough. His feedback can
>>>   be found here:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Mar/0002.html
>>>
>>> * Chris (Google) agreed with Mike's position and felt that the work
>>> needed to be incubated more. He also felt that the work should be
>>> constrained to Education. His feedback can be found here:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Mar/0003.html
>>>
>>> * Wendy (W3C) felt that the work was duplicative of JOSE/JWT and
>>>   felt that we only had enough members to make an attempt at
>>>   standardization wrt. the Education vertical. Her feedback is at the
>>>   end here:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#item04
>>>
>>> > I don't know how we can make good decisions without understanding the
>>> > circumstances and underlying considerations made by key stakeholders
>>> > who in-turn, yield such important decision making influenced. I note
>>> > also, I'm still not sure if these parties are active contributors or
>>> > whether they get involved on a more ad-hoc basis?
>>>
>>> These parties have not been deeply involved in the Verifiable Claims
>>> effort to date but have responded when asked for feedback on the
>>> charter. Both Wendy and Microsoft have been active with the JOSE/JWT
>>> work and Authentication / Security on the Web platform in general.
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern
>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
>>>
>>>