W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2021

Re: Chartering work has started for a Linked Data Signature Working Group @W3C

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 11:47:03 -0400
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b9990fac-2bba-9fb5-af32-824cee5f484a@digitalbazaar.com>
On 5/24/21 11:06 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> Please don't make email from me a precondition from engaging with Peter's 
> questions.

Yes, the plan is to engage regardless... however, a number of us have been
fetching rocks for the better part of the last 8+ years to just get a WG
started, so I'd like to know when that ends and we get to "good enough to
start a W3C WG Charter review".

All of our time is valuable. I'd just like to understand how much of a time
commitment we're asking from each other -- when does it end -- how long is the
list of "things that have to be addressed for each deliverable before a WG can
be started" is in each of your heads?

> If the issues have all been hashed out in previous fora, links would be a 
> good way to answer.

Honestly, at this point, we're better off just re-explaining it to each of
you. It would take me a very long time to go and find links, even if I had
clearly formulated questions to go off of (which, except for Peter's email, I
don't). For example, here's 834 emails from just public-credentials discussing
LDS:

https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=public-credentials&index-type=t&keywords=signature&search=Search&resultsperpage=100&sortby=date

Peter's questions are easy enough to dive into, so we'll start there and see
where it takes us.

> What I would like to see is a high-profile public call for review of this 
> *draft* charter from W3C (e.g. blog, mail to security lists, IETF liaisons
>  etc.) - blog post, tweet etc. Review shouldn't be happening on a semweb 
> list.

That's the purpose of the AC Charter Review, isn't it? Isn't this asking for
something quite non-standard? Isn't the purpose of the Coordination section of
the charter to seek input from those groups you're concerned about?

https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/#coordination

You are correct that a security review shouldn't be happening on the semweb
list... it should happen in a LDS WG and the liaisons mentioned in the
Coordination section... but simultaneously, we're being asked to participate
in one on the semweb list or risk the charter not even going out for review.

Having a concrete list from each of you on "things that need to be done before
AC Charter review" would help us avoid the random walk we're doing right now.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
Received on Monday, 24 May 2021 15:47:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:46:08 UTC