I can take it

<stonematt> Scribe: MattLarson

<stonematt> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Jan/0000.html

<Zakim> ChristopherA, you wanted to add to agenda

ChristopherA: I have someone who is interested in VC and the feedback was that we arent communicating how to become involved. Wondering about adding this for an angenda item.

Coordination with Credentials CG

manu: We have parts of the specification that we kind of defferrend to credentials CG. SO want to ensure that we are up to date there. Quick 5 min discussion.
... Implementations x3 - first priority and is a blocking at this point

stonematt: What cadence do we think ?

manu: Every 2 weeks would be fine. re: revocation and other items pushed off to CG

stonematt: I suggest they go after milestone 2 discussion or in place of main discussions.

Introductions

<stonematt> IRC welcome to hadleybeeman

spring meeting locations

<stonematt> possible locations: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19Ndqc5pLsTu2ZmP4Wy7OlMOmskQFHPh28sMjW3ugsww/edit#gid=0

stonematt: call to action for team members to add to the above list
... goal is into march - early april

<burn> Within a week or two the chairs will propose date/location

manu: my expectation is we will have a fairly heavy presence at rebooting, and some at IIW. Not to say we should have the meeting there, but if there are several members there we should plan for break out sessions.
... Not necessarily an official meeting but a face to face to let the other groups know what we have been up to for the past year.

<nage> +1 updates at these events are effective recruiting and help the communities track and align with what is going on

stonematt: If you are planning on going to any of these drop your name into the notes column.
... Is late march - early april the target for the next meeting?
... Is there a strong desire for any of these right now?
... if you want to express an opinion please send a note to the chairs or the list

ChisptopherA: How long for the face to face?

Consensus: 2 Days...

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest coordination between CCG and VCWG. and to suggest "presence" at events. and to and to wonder if we need to have a face to face?

manu: Face to face is fore issues we really cant get past. Our issue tracker is fairly empty and there dont seem to be many sticky issues. Maybe 2 days is too long and 1 day tacked onto end of rebooting may be enough.

<manu> q sooner ChristopherA

nage: I was going to mention that CG folks could benefit from whiteboarding implementations and that could be useful. But dont know how many people from CG would be availabe.

ChristopherA: something that was more along the lines of a hackathon or something that was focused on test conformance or implementation testing. That is something we need and is a gating factor.

<Zakim> ChristopherA, you wanted to talk about testing and hackathon. and to

<nage> +1 to making a hackathon-type event as open and accessible as practical

ChristopherA: As far as CG coordination there are many people in CG that are now w3c members and if the meeting requires them to wc3 memebers we should be aware of that

burn: I would rather plan a day and cancel instead of not plan and need it. It seems that there is enough for a tack on day. The reason we would be tacking it on would to reduce travel for members of both groups.
... These meetings are not any difference from the conference calls we have now, while it may feel that way to some

stomematt: consensus we should try to have a day tacked onto rebooting and see if we can make that work

Discuss Milestone 2 DOD

stonematt: there was a discussion in chair call about what is definition of done so we can close this milestone and move on to the next one
... complications of datamodel when subject != holder

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say use cases and we address them.

manu: We have a set of use cases that where subject != holder. The we get to the point where we feel we have addressed all of them.
... we have to demonstrate via data model how we handle them

stonematt: Have we had a chance to think about this vs. current data model and if there is a heavy lift coming

manu: we expect most of what we need is there. Some of this goes into protocols a little bit. But what we can at least do is write up some examples. I dont expect it to be a very heavy lift.

<DavidC> yep just joined

DavidC: prior to Christimas I sent out a decision tree diagram for subject != holder. I think we should have at least one example from each of types to ensure we dont have gaps.

<manu> +1 to ensuring we have a full suite of subject != holder that matches what DavidC provided to the mailing list.

DavidC: I would like ot suggest we have 1 of each classes covered, and if DM covers all those classes then we can be assure that all combinations are covered.

<manu> +1 to what DavidC just said.

<dlongley> +1

stonematt: Have we cross referenced this diagram to our current use cases?

DavidC: Not yet after holidays.

<Zakim> burn, you wanted to discuss phone dialin check

stonematt: focus for group should focus on doing use case inventory vs diagram and show how DM solves each one. And we will check in on calls to make sure we are making progress on that objective.
... Any objections?

No objections from group.

<TallTed> that decision tree diagram -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Dec/0016.html

<ChristopherA> cg

Coordination with CG

<ChristopherA> process: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Dec/0020.html

stonematt: We have deferred some items to CG - revocation, registry and so on. What sort of discussion should we have to keep track of that?

manu: I suggest we aggressively pull on what CG is producing to see if it meets our use cases.

<ChristopherA> - DID Method Registry http://bit.ly/2AHJ1KG

<ChristopherA> - Linked Data Key Types Registry http://bit.ly/2jfhpZs

<ChristopherA> - Credential Status Method Registry

<ChristopherA> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-status-registry/

manu: IN revocation case we slot whatever CG is working on into DM to see if it holds together

<TallTed> not normal. partly because CG is still new-ish.

<MattLarson_> stomematt: Is those sort of CG - WG coordination normal?

<MattLarson_> manu: Not really normal. This is part of the new way of doing things and we are a bit in uncharted territory here. While its new and strange, I dont see any problems.

<MattLarson_> ChristopherA: I did talk to wendy about it at w3c and there has been discussion in passing in a WG on process and they are aware of this effort. And there may be some long term changes, but no one has said stop it or dont do that. So far this the best way we know until there is a better process.

<MattLarson_> stonematt: It seems reasonable given the problem we have and charter

<ChristopherA> The other key person is Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> who is also aware of what we are doing.

<MattLarson_> TallTed: Very uncharted territory and w3c has been changing and these groups are on the bleeding edge of these changes.

<Zakim> burn, you wanted to give my opinion

<stonematt> +1 TallTed

<liam> [i'm also keeping an eye on it from a W3C point of view]

<stonematt> +1 to recommend/encourage new comers to join BOTH WG and CG.

<MattLarson_> TallTed: I joined WG before CG and with CG having done a lot before WG. Joining just CG may be okay but One needs to be in CG if you are in WG

<MattLarson_> burn: we need to make sure proper process is followed so that nothing drops into WG with IP reprocussions comes in without proper process

<MattLarson_> burn: You have to be aware that a standards group is not rubber stamping another group, so that if something comes up its not always just "we worked on this elsewhere"

<MattLarson_> burn: whats uncharted here is "that looks good from CG lets use it" not "that looks good from CG lets start it"

<ChristopherA> We are asking all contributors to officially join CG.

<MattLarson_> stomematt: Biggest takeway from WG is to be concerned with IPR and may be problematic down the line with open standards.

How does a newcomer start?

<MattLarson_> stonematt: If you havent been here from the start, how do you get the information you need?

<MattLarson_> ChristopherA: I got an email from someone who had been referred to us because of rebooting. Over holidays I read primers and resources. The rabbit hole seems not end. Its not been hard to digest, but when the rubber meets the road in coding I am not sure where to go. It seems coding is going on.

<MattLarson_> I am used to clear requirements defined, I am not used to work that way. Which repos? How can I add something of value?

<MattLarson_> ChristopherA: At a minimum you get search for VC webpage. It has no links to playground or how to get started or primer.

<MattLarson_> stonematt: What happens when you search for VC right now?

<MattLarson_> ChristopherA: w3c page is what comes to top. Then use cases. Then task force - use cases.

<MattLarson_> burn: I searched for Verifiable Credentials and I got data model.

<MattLarson_> stonematt: There is some book keeping work on search results. But what I am hearing is we need a playbook for here is how you get involved and what we need?

<MattLarson_> ChristopherA: Or how to get involved in an opensource project. Person in email will most likely not be able to join w3c but wants to get involved.

<MattLarson_> ChristopherA: Point people to here is the testing status of libraries... here is how you can get these libraries moving forward.

<stonematt> stonematt: need recipe for 1) read these primers 2) here's the official docs 3) join the groups (wg/cg) 4) here's the test suites 5) start an implementation

<ChristopherA> I'd like to share that with the CG folks

<ChristopherA> and RWoT is pull request oriented.

<MattLarson_> DavidC: The pull request process can be quite involved, and I documented how to do a PR and this document may be useful for people starting on working on github.

<stonematt> stonematt: 6) link to how use github - black magic...

<MattLarson_> burn: Thats the problem there is documentation out there but its not available.

<TallTed> +1 for making those docs more easily/readily available. Past experience with W3 wiki work does not help with github methods.

<TallTed> writing as a non-coder...

<nage> +1 that it is more about "this repo doesn't really have code, what do I do?" and "I'm doing code, where can I go to help?"

<ChristopherA> <waves goodbye>

<MattLarson_> ChristopherA: This may be more applicable for non core coders (PRs and github) but core coders probably know how to navigate PRS.

<ChristopherA> https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2017/blob/master/topics-and-advance-readings/verifiable-claims-primer.md

<ChristopherA> This was the primer from Octo

<MattLarson_> liam: Primers are documents that link specs together. Primers that exist to explain specs are a reflection of not an idea spec. So we shouldnt get into the idea of "we dont need to have an understandable spec, we will have a primer"

<liam> [ w3c "using github" page - https://w3c.github.io/]

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/? (agenda)//
Succeeded: i/manu: We have parts of/Topic: Coordination with Credentials CG
Succeeded: s/marh/march/
Succeeded: s/in rebooting/tacked onto rebooting/
Succeeded: s/All: No/No objections from group./
Succeeded: s/but whats to get involved/but wants to get involved/

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: colleen_kennedy, Dan_Burnett, Ted_Thibodeau, Matt_Stone, Matt_Larson, Manu_Sporny, Chris_Webber, Dave_Longley, Benjamin_Young, Nathan_George, Richard_Varn, Christopher_Allen, varn)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ colleen_kennedy, Dan_Burnett, Ted_Thibodeau, Matt_Stone, Matt_Larson, Manu_Sporny, Chris_Webber, Dave_Longley, Benjamin_Young, Nathan_George, Richard_Varn


WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Benjamin_Young, Chris_Webber, Dan_Burnett, Dave_Longley, Manu_Sporny, Matt_Larson, Matt_Stone, Nathan_George, Richard_Varn, Ted_Thibodeau, colleen_kennedy, Liam_Quin, David_Lehn, David_Chadwick)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ colleen_kennedy, Dan_Burnett, Ted_Thibodeau, Matt_Stone, Matt_Larson, Manu_Sporny, Chris_Webber, Dave_Longley, Benjamin_Young, Nathan_George, Richard_Varn

Present: colleen_kennedy Dan_Burnett Ted_Thibodeau Matt_Stone Matt_Larson Manu_Sporny Chris_Webber Dave_Longley Benjamin_Young Nathan_George Richard_Varn Christopher_Allen Liam_Quin David_Lehn David_Chadwick
Regrets: Tzviya_Siegman David_Ezell
Found Scribe: MattLarson
Inferring ScribeNick: MattLarson
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Jan/0000.html

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)