IRC log of vcwg on 2019-09-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:49:28 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
13:49:28 [RRSAgent]: logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/10-vcwg-irc
13:49:41 [burn]: Meeting: Verifiable Claims Working Group
13:49:46 [burn]: Chair: Matt_Stone
13:49:58 [burn]: burn has changed the topic to: 10 September 2019 VCWG Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Sep/0004.html
13:50:10 [burn]: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Sep/0004.html
13:50:17 [burn]: rrsagent, draft minutes
13:50:17 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/10-vcwg-minutes.html burn
13:53:10 [burn]: rrsagent, make logs public
13:55:05 [burn]: present+ Dan_Burnett
13:59:39 [Dudley]: Dudley has joined #vcwg
14:00:59 [deiu]: present+ Andrei_Sambra
14:01:47 [DavidC]: DavidC has joined #vcwg
14:02:14 [DavidC]: present+ David_Chadwick
14:02:28 [ken]: ken has joined #vcwg
14:02:45 [chaals]: chaals has joined #vcwg
14:03:40 [rhiaro]: present+ Amy_Guy
14:03:52 [oliver]: oliver has joined #vcwg
14:03:53 [oliver]: present+ oliver_terbu
14:04:00 [Dudley]: present+ Dudley_Collinson
14:04:05 [ken]: present+ Ken_Ebert
14:04:11 [JoeAndrieu]: JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
14:06:27 [bigbluehat]: present+ Benjamin_Young
14:07:14 [deiu]: scribenick: deiu
14:07:16 [stonematt]: scribenic: deiu
14:07:20 [yancy]: present+
14:07:22 [JoeAndrieu]: present+ Joe_Andrieu
14:07:25 [stonematt]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Sep/0004.html
14:07:52 [deiu]: stonematt: quick review now, we have some cleanup to do; the PR is out and we can discuss what comes next
14:08:06 [deiu]: TOPIC: Data model PR Is out
14:08:18 [brent]: brent has joined #vcwg
14:08:18 [deiu]: stonematt: we can take a deep breath and smile, thanks all
14:08:23 [ken]: Awesome!
14:08:59 [deiu]: ...we do have a few more docs to get out the door, so we'll spend a bit of time on those today. We are behind in terms of publishing. Is Amy around?
14:10:40 [deiu]: ...the first note to hit on is test suite publishing.
14:11:20 [Justin_R]: Justin_R has joined #vcwg
14:11:21 [rhiaro]: I don't remember doing anything on the test suite
14:11:21 [Justin_R]: present+
14:11:35 [deiu]: ...I see Amy opened a couple of PRs. Is the test suite ready to go? We said that Oct 31 is the deadline and the test suite is ready to go. Do you have anything to add to that Amy?
14:11:52 [burn]: Test suite is not a doc, doesn't need publishing
14:11:53 [deiu]: rhiaro: I have only dealt with the use cases and implementation guide.
14:12:03 [deiu]: stonematt: OK, let's go to the implementation guide then.
14:12:48 [burn]: https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/58
14:12:50 [deiu]: ...you have a PR opened for the imp-guide with a checklist. Do you need help there?
14:13:00 [deiu]: ...we need this today, right?
14:13:12 [deiu]: rhiaro: I don't know for sure. I used today's date.
14:13:52 [deiu]: stonematt: I think we're going to publish what we have, since the expectation was that we're publishing what we had at the beginning of the month. If we publish today we'll give ourselves enough time.
14:14:40 [deiu]: stonematt: we'll ask the team contact (he usually joins at the top of the hour) and he can validate the publishing day when he joins
14:15:22 [burn]: Since we already voted for publication, all we need is to tell Kaz when it's time. We also need to separately make a group RESOLUTION that the CCG will take over maintenance of the document
14:15:26 [deiu]: ...Looking at the agenda, the next item is use cases.
14:15:31 [deiu]: TOPIC: Use cases
14:15:42 [ken]: q+
14:15:51 [deiu]: rhiaro: is there anything controversial or is it just conflicts in the PRs?
14:16:03 [burn]: We also need a clear RESOLUTION that the CCG will take over all maintenance of the VCDM spec and incubate future versions of the spec.
14:16:14 [deiu]: TallTed: it's mostly formatting, e.g. issues with nesting trees and headings.
14:16:42 [deiu]: ...we can avoid creating a huge mess by resolving conflicts before merging.
14:17:07 [deiu]: ...I'm not sure how to rename "verifiable claims" to "verifiable credentials"
14:17:16 [deiu]: rhiaro: can you do that today?
14:17:20 [deiu]: TallTed: probably
14:17:26 [JoeAndrieu]: q+ to ask about claims v credentials
14:18:01 [deiu]: stonematt: I'm going to assign proper tags to the PRs
14:18:05 [burn]: Also, need to clearly state in a RESOLUTION that we explicitly authorize the CCG not only to run the registries in the spec but also to specify any governance details found to be lacking.
14:18:15 [rhiaro]: q?
14:18:26 [deiu]: stonematt: so we expect to have that done in hours.
14:18:28 [deiu]: TallTed: yes
14:18:58 [deiu]: ken: how can I help review that work? Is it 101 I should be concentrating on?
14:19:13 [deiu]: stonematt: 111 is the one you should proofread now
14:19:18 [stonematt]: https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/111
14:19:23 [stonematt]: q?
14:19:28 [stonematt]: ack ken
14:19:31 [deiu]: TallTed: there are some issues with formatting there, sections and bullet lists, etc.
14:19:45 [deiu]: ken: I will work on 111 and try to review 116 after
14:20:00 [stonematt]: ack JoeAndrieu
14:20:00 [Zakim]: JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about claims v credentials
14:20:12 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: what is the current intention w.r.t. claims vs credentials terminology
14:20:16 [Dudley]: Dudley has joined #vcwg
14:20:28 [deiu]: stonematt: is that addressed in 111, TallTed?
14:20:51 [deiu]: TallTed: It is not addressed yet, I can do the conflicts or do this other thing.
14:20:55 [Dudley]: present+ Dudley_Collinson
14:21:00 [deiu]: stonematt: do the conflicts so we ca have a clean copy.
14:21:39 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: so none of the PRs are actually addressing the issue of correcting terminology. Amy can do you do that?
14:22:03 [deiu]: rhiaro: if it's just the case of find and replace...
14:22:26 [deiu]: stonematt: as long as it's in the body of the text and not the group name
14:22:44 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: take you best pass and we can provide feedback after
14:22:56 [deiu]: ...is there any thoughts about the *name* of the document?
14:23:18 [rhiaro]: It's not in the short name so I don't see any reason changing the title would be a problem
14:23:19 [deiu]: stonematt: let's ask Kaz if he comes on. It seems a pretty daunting task.
14:23:50 [deiu]: ...I'm worried the list of stuff left to do is getting a bit long
14:24:08 [deiu]: TallTed: there are PNG graphics and SVG graphics. What's the deal?
14:24:16 [deiu]: stonematt: kill the SVGs and keep PNG.
14:24:29 [stonematt]: q?
14:26:04 [deiu]: stonematt: TallTed is resolving conflicts and as soon as that's done, just hit the merge button.
14:26:27 [deiu]: TallTed: I was going to tag rhiaro on the PR once I've finished the conflicts but I can merge if you think that's better.
14:26:48 [deiu]: rhiaro: I don't mind. If someone wants to review, say so now, otherwise we'll go ahead and merge.
14:27:02 [ken]: +1 to merge and review after
14:27:10 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: I say merge early and review after, since we have a lot of outstanding PRs.
14:27:43 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: the current definition for "verifier" is really wrong. I'm not sure where to fix this.
14:27:47 [TallTed]: <dt>Verifier</dt>
14:27:47 [TallTed]: <dd>The <a>entity</a> verifying a claim about a given subject.
14:27:48 [rhiaro]: all of the terms were pulled directly from the data model
14:28:01 [rhiaro]: JoeAndrieu: if you ping me the correct dfn I can fix it
14:28:22 [deiu]: stonematt: TallTed put the right one in IRC
14:28:54 [deiu]: ...is the doc you're working on referencing the right definition?
14:29:09 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: rhiaro will deal with it after TallTed
14:30:17 [deiu]: stonematt: Once TallTed is done with the merge, we'll do the typo check and other feedback. What happens if we find something, since rhiaro is about to finalize the snapshot.
14:30:43 [deiu]: ...thanks rhiaro and TallTed
14:32:38 [JoeAndrieu]: btw, I have a draft resolution based on Dan's request
14:32:54 [deiu]: stonematt: I'll start with the first resolution.
14:33:15 [deiu]: ...[reading the three comments from burn]
14:33:59 [stonematt]: q?
14:34:19 [deiu]: stonematt: you have a draft resolution based on burn's request?
14:34:41 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: it might be better to do them separately.
14:35:07 [deiu]: stonematt: let's say the data model spec is one, the registry is another, and the CCG taking over the notes is the last one
14:36:36 [deiu]: [stonematt and JoeAndrieu reading proposed resolution texts in the background]
14:38:15 [stonematt]: there are 4 active repos w/ published documents: 1) Data Model, 2) Use Cases, 3) Test Suite, 4) Implementation Guide
14:39:21 [burn]: Move or copy; not sure which is allowed
14:39:29 [deiu]: stonematt: the first resolution is about changing ownership of repos, and the second is about the registries
14:39:45 [burn]: s/which/moving/
14:39:50 [deiu]: ...we want all four to continue living and being dynamic
14:40:05 [JoeAndrieu]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: Credentials Community Group will take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials Data Model spec, Verifiable Credentials implementation guide, test-suite, use case document, and incubate future versions of the same.
14:41:06 [JoeAndrieu]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verificable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials Data Model spec, Verifiable Credentials implementation guide, test-suite, use case document, and incubate future versions of the same.
14:42:13 [JoeAndrieu]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verificable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials documents: Data Model spec, Implementation Guide, Test Suite, and Use Case document, and to incubate future versions of the same.
14:42:23 [stonematt]: q?
14:42:51 [JoeAndrieu]: PROPOSED: We the Verificable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials documents: Data Model spec, Implementation Guide, Test Suite, and Use Case document, and to incubate future versions of the same.
14:42:59 [yancy]: +1
14:43:00 [ken]: +1
14:43:00 [JoeAndrieu]: +1
14:43:00 [deiu]: +1
14:43:01 [stonematt]: +1
14:43:01 [Dudley]: +1
14:43:03 [rhiaro]: +1
14:43:05 [oliver]: +1
14:43:06 [brent]: +1
14:43:07 [TallTed]: +q
14:43:09 [DavidC]: +1
14:43:10 [TallTed]: +1
14:43:13 [TallTed]: -q
14:43:14 [burn]: +1
14:43:39 [JoeAndrieu]: RESOLVED: We the Verificable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to take over all maintenance of the Verifiable Credentials documents: Data Model spec, Implementation Guide, Test Suite, and Use Case document, and to incubate future versions of the same.
14:44:02 [deiu]: stonematt: let's do a similar one for the running & governance of the registries
14:44:03 [JoeAndrieu]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verificable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries in the spec and to specify any governance details found to be lacking.
14:44:37 [burn]: s/Verificable Claims/Verifiable Claims/
14:44:50 [JoeAndrieu]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verificable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries in the spec and to specify any additional necessary governance details.
14:46:03 [JoeAndrieu]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries describee in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model spec and to specify any additional governance details as necessary.
14:46:20 [ken]: describee to described
14:46:34 [JoeAndrieu]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries describee in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification and to define any additional governance details as necessary.
14:47:03 [ken]: +1
14:47:11 [JoeAndrieu]: PROPOSED: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries described in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification and to define any additional governance details as necessary.
14:47:16 [TallTed]: +1
14:47:18 [JoeAndrieu]: +1
14:47:19 [deiu]: +1
14:47:19 [stonematt]: +1
14:47:19 [brent]: +1
14:47:20 [burn]: +1
14:47:20 [Dudley]: +1
14:47:21 [DavidC]: +1
14:47:21 [yancy]: +1
14:47:24 [ken]: +1
14:47:24 [rhiaro]: +1
14:47:37 [JoeAndrieu]: RESOLVED: We the Verifiable Claims Working Group authorize the Credentials Community Group to run the registries described in the Verifiable Credentials Data Model specification and to define any additional governance details as necessary.
14:47:45 [Dudley]: +q
14:47:50 [deiu]: stonematt: thank you everyone!
14:47:56 [oliver]: +1
14:48:08 [deiu]: Dudley: I just noticed we got a typo "Verificable" in the first proposal
14:48:10 [rhiaro]: s/Verificable/Verifiable
14:48:15 [JoeAndrieu]: s/Verificable/Verfiable/
14:49:12 [JoeAndrieu]: s/Verificable/Verifiable/
14:49:33 [burn]: s/Verfiable/Verifiable/
14:49:34 [JoeAndrieu]: s/Verfiable/Verifiable/
14:50:44 [deiu]: stonematt: we still have a couple more topics on the agenda. Let's start with DavidC, then burn, then have an open discussion
14:50:52 [DavidC]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x8xWzo_qR6GuZ4jF1jlYKGZd09yBLhnL/edit
14:51:05 [deiu]: DavidC: I think everybody can see that document
14:51:24 [deiu]: ...this is about the Response to DCMS Digital Identity: Call for Evidence
14:51:51 [deiu]: ...it's about improving digital identity in the UK. I've produced draft answers to 20/21 items
14:52:23 [deiu]: ...VC is exactly the right solution for them. This is a public response, we don't want it to be private.
14:53:01 [stonematt]: q+
14:53:02 [deiu]: ...they have a few examples of needs, but our list of use cases is much longer. We're ahead of the game and can provide a lot of use cases.
14:53:05 [stonematt]: ack Dudley
14:53:36 [deiu]: DavidC: there's a couple of places where I would like examples from people here.
14:53:56 [deiu]: ...I would also like a few more examples for the pain points. Any comments so far?
14:54:42 [deiu]: stonematt: let's try to keep this within a 15 min limit? Maybe quickly go through each of them and ask for volunteers.
14:55:11 [ken]: David's document is not editable or commentable.
14:55:24 [deiu]: ...we can do this as an aside, but are we changing the short name of the spec? If so, you'll have to change the URL in your doc, DavidC. I think it will be vc-use-cases
14:55:30 [ken]: q+
14:55:35 [stonematt]: ack stonematt
14:56:01 [deiu]: DavidC: I'm really looking for examples in the first 3 points. If people could just add some in the next few days, it would be great.
14:56:27 [deiu]: ken: the document is not editable nor can we comment
14:56:27 [DavidC]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8xWzo_qR6GuZ4jF1jlYKGZd09yBLhnL/view?usp=sharing
14:57:04 [deiu]: stonematt: there might be a hidden setting you can toggle
14:57:38 [deiu]: ...try to find the Google version, not the docx.
14:57:53 [ken]: The second like is also not editable.
14:58:02 [stonematt]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TO2CnpVN3-kEo5Xuwuw7CzCq8Ml3zlqdFbp5IbCrlyQ/edit?usp=sharing
14:58:06 [ken]: s/like/link/
14:58:10 [Dudley]: Dudley has joined #vcwg
14:58:38 [ken]: This link works to edit.
14:58:48 [stonematt]: use the doc from stonematt
14:58:51 [Dudley]: present+ Dudley_Collinson
14:59:12 [burn]: rrsagent, draft minutes
14:59:12 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/10-vcwg-minutes.html burn
14:59:23 [deiu]: DavidC: if people want to contribute, are you OK putting your name in the doc so it gains more weight?
14:59:53 [deiu]: ...can we have a resolution saying that the VCWG has read the doc and we'll provide answers to those questions?
15:00:16 [Justin_R]: 1+
15:00:17 [Justin_R]: q+
15:00:20 [deiu]: stonematt: is there precedence for WGs doing things like these in general? Signing our group name?
15:00:31 [stonematt]: ack ken
15:00:36 [stonematt]: ack Justin_R
15:00:37 [JoeAndrieu]: q+ to mention timing issues
15:00:39 [burn]: Working groups can make statements as a group, but make sure there is consensus for it
15:01:29 [deiu]: Justin_R: if we're going to do something like this, I'm not happy with it being published with the group's name. If there's anything from this group, I'd rather see it done signed by individuals with a stated association with the WG, stating their expertise.
15:01:46 [Justin_R]: @deiu: s/happy/comfortable/
15:01:47 [deiu]: stonematt: DavidC, so what if we each sign our name?
15:02:00 [Dudley]: +1
15:02:03 [deiu]: DavidC: I'm just worried about timing
15:02:32 [deiu]: ...we can add at the beginning that the following list of people have contributed.
15:03:00 [deiu]: Justin_R: if you were against it while the group quickly put their name on a doc, that would be bad.
15:03:49 [stonematt]: q+
15:03:52 [deiu]: ...this document is not part of the SDO process nor the activities in the group's charter. I don't see why we're doing this as a WG.
15:03:53 [stonematt]: ack JoeAndrieu
15:03:53 [Zakim]: JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention timing issues
15:04:23 [oliver]: +1 (justin)
15:04:23 [deiu]: Justin_R: in terms of process and propriety, it would be much better if individuals would opt in to have their name listed.
15:04:31 [deiu]: +1 too
15:04:50 [deiu]: DavidC: how about saying "the following members of VCWG..."
15:05:13 [deiu]: Justin_R: this group is not here to create opinions and this document is way out of our charter
15:06:15 [deiu]: DavidC: that makes sense. It would be much nicer if the UK gov would support our work. It's about marketing our group to the UK gov to show them how it answers some of their needs.
15:06:25 [JoeAndrieu]: q-
15:06:53 [TallTed]: q+
15:07:03 [stonematt]: q?
15:07:06 [deiu]: stonematt: it seems we don't need a resolution after all. If you feel like contributing to this document, please put your name in the list.
15:07:07 [stonematt]: ack stonematt
15:07:11 [stonematt]: ack TallTed
15:07:38 [deiu]: TallTed: I would suggest you finalize the text of the document and publish the link on the mailing list to see who's interested.
15:07:57 [deiu]: ...add a deadline.
15:08:47 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: more people would like to support you DavidC than people who will have bandwidth for it in the next week
15:09:14 [deiu]: DavidC: I'll send it to the list them, with the deadline set for 9am GMT on Sunday morning.
15:09:54 [deiu]: stonematt: thanks DavidC, it's important to get critical mass for adoption of our work.
15:10:33 [deiu]: ...next item on the list is What's Next?
15:11:26 [stonematt]: TOPIC: TPAC celebrate
15:11:36 [deiu]: burn: We've all worked very hard, as it's been a stressful last couple of months. It would be a shame to just end the group like this. I'm thinking it would be nice to have a party and get together during TPAC.
15:12:07 [deiu]: ...I would like to hear some opinions about what people might like to do and where.
15:12:13 [stonematt]: q?
15:12:19 [deiu]: +1 to party!
15:12:41 [JoeAndrieu]: +1 to party
15:13:40 [deiu]: burn: the DID WG meetings are not scheduled yet. Right now our efforts have been on getting the emails out for W3C members to join the DIDWG. Our plan is to send out request for topics for the agenda. Brent already has an agenda outline but we're still waiting before we send it out. It will go out towards the end of this week though.
15:14:19 [ken]: +1 to dinner/party
15:14:41 [deiu]: ...if anyone has specific suggestions, send them to me by email, otherwise I'll arrange it.
15:14:54 [DavidC]: -1 because I wont be there (only joking)
15:15:04 [deiu]: stonematt: I regret not being able to make it, otherwise I'd be +1'ing the proposal.
15:15:13 [Dudley]: +1 to Sun,Mon,Tues or We’d
15:15:28 [deiu]: stonematt: next topic is Future Facing.
15:15:32 [deiu]: TOPIC: Future Facing
15:15:44 [burn]: rrsagent, draft minutes
15:15:44 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/10-vcwg-minutes.html burn
15:16:28 [deiu]: stonematt: the end of our formal charter is here. The data model doc is out, we all recognize that the charter was very narrowly scoped, which limited our discussions. As we open the next chapter of this work, we'll take the discussions to the CCG.
15:17:06 [kaz]: present+ Kaz_Ashimura
15:17:10 [JoeAndrieu]: q+
15:17:10 [stonematt]: q?
15:17:11 [deiu]: ...I thought it would be nice to start thinking about what we want to do from here. People mentioned lack of protocol, technical issues, wallets, repositories, etc.
15:17:16 [stonematt]: ack JoeAndrieu
15:17:22 [brent]: present+ Brent_Zundel
15:17:25 [kaz]: rrsagent, draft minutes
15:17:25 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/10-vcwg-minutes.html kaz
15:18:22 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: the CCG has fostered open conversations for what comes after VCs and DIDs, as we start laying the ground. Kim mentioned secure data hubs which led to conversions at RWoT.
15:18:49 [deiu]: ...there's also a lot of conversations about what we do with agents and wallets, both in terms of terminology but also protocols.
15:19:06 [stonematt]: q?
15:19:15 [deiu]: ...we look forward to incubating that dialogue.
15:19:36 [burn]: present+ Matt_Stone
15:19:54 [burn]: present+ Ted_Thibodeau
15:19:54 [deiu]: stonematt: I have a related (tactical) question: who is planning to go to the CCG and is planning to drive this work forward.
15:20:06 [DavidC]: I will
15:20:09 [deiu]: s/forward./forward?
15:20:09 [ken]: I will
15:20:22 [oliver]: i will
15:20:26 [deiu]: burn: I am planning to continue. It's very important work.
15:20:33 [DavidC]: q+
15:20:45 [deiu]: stonematt: are we going to continue having CCG calls after this? What does the schedule look like?
15:21:26 [deiu]: burn: there is no decision yet, we'll discuss call times at TPAC. One option is to take over this slot, another option is Thursday.
15:21:45 [deiu]: ...probably not for 2h at the same time as this slot though.
15:21:47 [brent]: +1 to not 2 hours :)
15:21:51 [deiu]: ...but this is not my decision.
15:21:54 [oliver]: +1 to not 2 hours
15:21:58 [stonematt]: q?
15:22:00 [stonematt]: ack deiu
15:22:03 [stonematt]: ack DavidC
15:22:21 [deiu]: DavidC: it's about the access to the CCG. It's not as good as for this group.
15:22:25 [burn]: present- yancy
15:22:29 [burn]: present+ yancy_ribbens
15:22:59 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: when was the last time you tried DavidC? There have been some significant upgrades re. network connectivity from our host.
15:23:15 [deiu]: DavidC: people complained about not being able to hear me. Not sure if it was just the software.
15:23:55 [burn]: q+
15:24:01 [deiu]: stonematt: is the CCG meeting next week or will it be canceled because of TPAC?
15:24:10 [stonematt]: ack burn
15:24:16 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: I am going to TPAC, so it's likely it will be canceled.
15:25:09 [deiu]: burn: I am assuming we will also be canceling this call next call. Even if the DIDWG ends up taking this slot today, I will suggest we take some recovery time off after TPAC (and other f-2-f meetings).
15:25:43 [JoeAndrieu]: q+ to have a sleep-in and recover meeting
15:25:46 [deiu]: ...I don't expect people to be doing any work right after a face-2-face.
15:26:15 [stonematt]: ack JoeAndrieu
15:26:15 [Zakim]: JoeAndrieu, you wanted to have a sleep-in and recover meeting
15:26:19 [deiu]: ...it would be nice to decide about that before we end the call today.
15:26:38 [Dudley]: +1 to sleep-in it is 1:26am here..
15:27:19 [stonematt]: TOPIC: Last Call
15:27:23 [deiu]: ...I would not suggest two hours for that final day in September anyway. Let's assume that today is our last call, so as a last agenda item, I would like to have people talk about their experiences if they wished to
15:27:24 [DavidC]: q+
15:27:27 [JoeAndrieu]: q+ to say thanks
15:27:35 [stonematt]: ack DavidC
15:27:35 [kaz]: q+
15:27:51 [stonematt]: ack JoeAndrieu
15:27:51 [Zakim]: JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say thanks
15:27:51 [deiu]: DavidC: I would like to express my thanks to the two chairs and to Manu for all their hard work.
15:28:28 [deiu]: JoeAndrieu: I want to also say thanks. I felt extremely welcomed and felt that I was able to contribute.
15:28:33 [kaz]: * Request for AC reviews from the VCWG participants
15:28:33 [kaz]: * VC use case document's new shortname (part of agendum 5 above)
15:28:33 [kaz]: * Joint discussions at TPAC with WoT (even though the VCWG itself will not meet at TPAC 2019)
15:28:33 [kaz]: * Possible extension/rechartering for maintenance work (and some more)
15:28:34 [stonematt]: ack kaz
15:28:51 [deiu]: kaz: I wanted to check on a few points (see above).
15:29:31 [deiu]: kaz: the PR has been published and we have 9 responses from AC reps. Please ask your AC rep friends to respond.
15:29:41 [burn]: +1 to responding in favor of the VCDM spec being published as a Recommendation
15:30:11 [deiu]: kaz: re. the new short name vc-use-case, we need to make a reservation for this name.
15:30:11 [rhiaro]: q+ to ask kaz what publication date we should put on the implementation guide and use cases NOTEs?
15:30:42 [kaz]: s/reservation/resolution/
15:31:00 [deiu]: stonematt: we have not made a resolution about the short name, we'll fix that right now
15:31:25 [stonematt]: ack rhiaro
15:31:25 [Zakim]: rhiaro, you wanted to ask kaz what publication date we should put on the implementation guide and use cases NOTEs?
15:31:48 [deiu]: rhiaro: this questions is about the implementation guide, what date should we use?
15:32:10 [deiu]: kaz: re. the short name we'll have to wait until TPAC is over (two weeks from now)
15:32:19 [rhiaro]: So 2019-09-24 for both?
15:32:24 [deiu]: ...publication resumes on the 24th
15:32:32 [rhiaro]: or just for use cases? Can implementation guide be earlier?
15:32:36 [deiu]: burn: rhiaro needs a date for the document.
15:32:40 [jonathan_holt]: jonathan_holt has joined #vcwg
15:32:44 [DavidC]: question. Will the new name be /VC-use-cases/ or /vc-use-cases/
15:33:12 [burn]: s/needs/just needs/
15:33:24 [deiu]: kaz: I would like to the talk to the webmaster, but we can publish on the 24th
15:33:25 [JoeAndrieu]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: To rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the shortname "vc-use-case".
15:33:42 [rhiaro]: JoeAndrieu: use-cases plural?
15:34:02 [JoeAndrieu]: DRAFT RESOLUTION: To rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the shortname "vc-use-cases".
15:34:08 [deiu]: kaz: it should be similar to the github repo name
15:34:21 [TallTed]: drop "To"
15:34:33 [kaz]: s/repo name/repo name, "vc-use-cases"/
15:34:50 [JoeAndrieu]: PROPOSAL: Rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the shortname "vc-use-cases".
15:34:52 [TallTed]: +1
15:34:54 [deiu]: +1
15:34:54 [stonematt]: +1
15:34:55 [Dudley]: +1
15:34:56 [rhiaro]: +1
15:34:59 [brent]: +1
15:34:59 [ken]: +1
15:35:00 [oliver]: +1
15:35:00 [burn]: +1
15:35:00 [yancy]: +1
15:35:03 [JoeAndrieu]: +1
15:35:06 [DavidC]: +1
15:35:16 [JoeAndrieu]: RESOLVED: Rename the Verifiable Claims Use Cases document to Verifiable Credentials Use Cases document with the shortname "vc-use-cases".
15:35:56 [deiu]: kaz: now about the joint discussions at TPAC with WoT (even though the VCWG itself will not meet at TPAC 2019)
15:36:48 [deiu]: ...in the join discussions between DID and WoT WGs
15:37:17 [deiu]: ...it would be better to invite you all to the WoT meeting on Thursday or Friday.
15:37:28 [deiu]: burn: if anyone has conflicts please contact kaz
15:37:30 [jonathan_holt]: jonathan_holt has joined #vcwg
15:38:21 [deiu]: kaz: now to the last point, extending the VCWG by 2 months to finish the REC transition. And also maintenance work.
15:38:47 [deiu]: stonematt: we had 2 resolution earlier about CCG picking up the work once VCWG finishes
15:39:08 [deiu]: kaz: I'll talk with plh about it then
15:39:58 [deiu]: ...I was wondering about people's interest in protocol work, so there might be other topics in addition to maintenance work
15:40:16 [deiu]: burn: there are people who are interested but there is a timing issue because of the DID work
15:41:04 [deiu]: ...this work was controversial when it started, so my personal opinion is that it would be better to wait at least one year or wait for the DID WG. Of course, the work can be incubated in the CCG.
15:41:24 [deiu]: kaz: what about the 2 month extension for finalizing the REC transition.
15:41:47 [deiu]: burn: does the group need to exist when the REC comes out? plh told me that isn't the case.
15:42:01 [deiu]: kaz: I'll get backto plh and have another discussion.
15:42:45 [stonematt]: grrr
15:43:04 [deiu]: TallTed: it is insulting to bring up an extension for admin stuff, given the short deadline we just had to work with. This is not OK.
15:43:15 [deiu]: burn: I agree with you TallTed.
15:44:07 [deiu]: kaz: I'm not suggesting we should extend the charter.
15:44:32 [deiu]: TallTed: that is not the group preference, it was what the group has been forced into.
15:44:41 [deiu]: s/group/group's
15:45:15 [deiu]: ...it was impossible to get any extensions and now it's being suggested that we can be extended
15:46:00 [deiu]: burn: so kaz, the answer is no. Thank you.
15:46:37 [stonematt]: q?
15:47:02 [ken]: q+
15:47:07 [stonematt]: q+
15:47:08 [deiu]: burn: a few people thanked the chairs, but I would like to thank the group.
15:47:24 [deiu]: ...I really appreciate the group's willingness to get things done.
15:48:18 [deiu]: ...It's very important for the world to see there is a standard around the work we're doing. Having a version 1 is really important. There's a difference between "almost having it" and actually "having it".
15:49:00 [deiu]: ...there's been a lot of people who have contributed, so I appreciate the effort from each and every one of you. I'm looking forward to working with you in the DIDWG.
15:49:08 [stonematt]: ack ken
15:49:37 [kaz]: q+ to appreciate the group's hard work and great contributions again
15:49:38 [deiu]: ken: I wanted to thank the chairs and the group for welcoming a latecomer to the party and to support ZKP.
15:50:29 [oliver]: q+
15:50:57 [deiu]: stonematt: I would like to echo burn's comment about having v1.0 but also to pick up on JoeAndrieu's comment about this being my first experience with a W3C WG. It has been very rewarding, people can bring a lot of passion but can also move forward.
15:51:29 [deiu]: ...I hope this can be replicated in the DIDWG and we can take it to the CCG.
15:51:55 [deiu]: ...Also, thank you kaz for being our team contact and for helping us along the way.
15:51:57 [burn]: +1 re kaz. Thank you, thank you, thank you
15:52:16 [stonematt]: q?
15:52:19 [stonematt]: ack stonematt
15:52:21 [stonematt]: ack kaz
15:52:21 [Zakim]: kaz, you wanted to appreciate the group's hard work and great contributions again
15:52:30 [stonematt]: ack oliver
15:52:36 [deiu]: kaz: thank you very much to everyone for your hard work and great contributions, it was my pleasure.
15:52:52 [stonematt]: q?
15:52:57 [deiu]: oliver: also a latecomer, thank you all for welcoming me, I really appreciate it.
15:53:21 [deiu]: stonematt: all right everyone, congratulations!
15:53:49 [JoeAndrieu]: Congratulations, all! Thanks for the great work!
15:53:54 [deiu]: ...I think this is the end of the call and of the VCWG. We'll keep an eye on the pending PRs and publications. Thank you thank you thank you.
15:54:00 [deiu]: burn: bye all and thanks again!
15:54:06 [stonematt]: bye!
15:54:16 [ken]: ken has left #vcwg
15:56:36 [kaz]: rrsagent, draft minutes
15:56:36 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/10-vcwg-minutes.html kaz
16:01:06 [JoeAndrieu]: JoeAndrieu has left #vcwg
16:44:29 [cwebber2]: cwebber2 has joined #vcwg
17:55:59 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #vcwg
18:43:17 [chaals]: chaals has joined #vcwg
20:07:21 [codenamedmitri]: codenamedmitri has joined #vcwg
21:28:16 [cwebber2]: cwebber2 has joined #vcwg
22:04:33 [chaals]: chaals has joined #vcwg
23:01:05 [chaals]: chaals has joined #vcwg