14:44:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:44:19 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/09/21-did-irc
14:44:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:44:24 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:44:50 <ivan> Meeting: DID WG Telco
14:44:50 <ivan> Chair: brent
14:44:50 <ivan> Date: 2021-09-21
14:44:50 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Sep/0023.html
14:44:50 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-09-21: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Sep/0023.html
14:50:39 <burn> burn has joined #did
14:57:19 <burn> present+
14:57:29 <ivan> present+
14:58:05 <brent> brent has joined #did
14:58:38 <shigeya> present+
14:58:44 <brent> present+
14:59:18 <ivan> present+ rgrant
14:59:25 <ivan> present+ shigeya
15:00:11 <rgrant> rgrant has joined #did
15:01:14 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
15:01:20 <ivan> present+ orie
15:01:24 <drummond> present+
15:01:32 <ivan> present+ agropper
15:02:07 <rgrant> present+
15:02:09 <ivan> chair: burn
15:02:51 <ivan> present+ manu
15:02:56 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
15:02:56 <ivan> present+ justin
15:03:07 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
15:03:10 <agropper> scribe+
15:03:10 <Orie> present+
15:03:12 <burn> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions
15:03:32 <manu> present+
15:03:42 <agropper> Topic: Agenda Review
15:03:49 <ivan> present+ Rod_Waltermann
15:04:00 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
15:04:03 <Geun-Hyung> Geun-Hyung has joined #did
15:04:07 <justin_r> present+
15:04:24 <agropper> Dan: After rubric PRs, cover Ryan's concerns
15:04:34 <burn> q?
15:04:39 <burn> Topic: DID Registries/Rubric Editors
15:04:42 <Geun-Hyung> present+
15:04:48 <agropper> Topi: Editors
15:05:06 <ivan> s/Topi: Editors//
15:05:21 <ivan> present+ cel
15:05:23 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
15:05:56 <agropper> Dan: No editors problem for now but we will switch to maintenance mode - need people who understand how we got to where we are and can assist process new requests - then be able to respond in a timely manner - within a few days to a week
15:06:03 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
15:06:11 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:06:11 <ivan> present+ pam
15:06:27 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:06:33 <agropper> ... asking for people to be considered for maintainer of registries and or rubric
15:06:34 <rgrant> I'll volunteer to be a registry editor
15:06:36 <ivan> present+ dpuc
15:06:37 <dmitriz> present+
15:06:43 <ivan> present+ JoeAndrieu
15:06:45 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:06:45 <pam> pam has joined #did
15:06:52 <burn> q?
15:07:00 <ivan> present+ orie
15:07:10 <Rod_W> Rod_W has joined #did
15:07:25 <JoeAndrieu> I'll continue with the rubric
15:07:28 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #did
15:07:57 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:08:01 <burn> ack JoeAndrieu
15:08:01 <TallTed> present+
15:08:05 <agropper> ... editors and chairs will discuss - Ryan say no preference - TY Joe for continuing with the rubric - requires not much time but regular checking
15:08:31 <agropper> Joe: Your comment if it becomes a registry is confusing
15:09:01 <agropper> Dan: I believe the registry PR has not merged yet
15:09:09 <agropper> Joe: It has merged last nght
15:09:19 <agropper> Dan: Good news - we're good
15:09:27 <mprorock> present+
15:09:28 <burn> Topic: DID Spec status update
15:09:51 <manu> q+ to note one last PR that needs to go in.
15:10:20 <rgrant> q+
15:10:21 <justin_r> is this meeting or its notes open to the public?
15:10:24 <burn> ack manu
15:10:24 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note one last PR that needs to go in.
15:10:31 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
15:10:31 <agropper> Burn: Meeting in a couple of hours to discuss objections - believe there's nothing to block
15:10:53 <dbuc> present+
15:11:29 <agropper> Manu: One last PR into DID spec - editorial - to mark sections as non-normative to handle some complaints - will be merging at the end of today - please take a look
15:11:34 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:11:38 <drummond> +1 to merging that PR
15:11:55 <agropper> burn: Before Ryan. please present + in IRC
15:12:20 <pam> present +
15:12:37 <manu> q+ to mention WoT WG invitation?
15:12:48 <dbuc> Great to hear this, Rob!
15:13:02 <dbuc> It's exciting to see more hardware vendors involved
15:13:12 <dbuc> q+
15:13:26 <drummond> Good stuff
15:13:34 <agropper> Rod: I work for Lenovo and DID is very important for us to build a cohesive experience across multiple devices - potential to build DID into our core code - a little concerned about browser companies and privacy objections - if we publish and they don't adopt, then what happens?
15:15:00 <agropper> Burn: Rod will respond to one of your questions... I just gave a summary of chairs + manu and objectors meeting. Queue for other responses, please
15:15:05 <burn> ack rgrant
15:15:26 <by_caballero> by_caballero has joined #did
15:16:11 <ivan> present+ cypherhippie
15:16:32 <agropper> Ryan: One of the main objections was that TAG sustainability re: global warming for POW - we have some detailed arguments for the implementation guide 27 - I'm concerned that the advocates that are best to defend that will not be present
15:17:39 <rgrant> Thanks I appreciate the scope clarification.
15:17:41 <agropper> Burn: This meeting is part of the standard W3C process - the issue is whether that the DID core doc can be published - if it turns out that the discussion continues we will bring in others
15:17:58 <TallTed> q+
15:17:58 <burn> ack manu
15:17:59 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention WoT WG invitation?
15:18:01 <agropper> ... the chairs don't want to have the blocking conversation now.
15:18:20 <mprorock> Chairs - separate topic, but didn't want it to get lost: I was notified that there is a need for an additional editor on the did registry to handle workload and I would like to volunteer
15:18:42 <agropper> Manu: +1 to what Dan said - I pushed back on the basis of inappropriate comment - but prematre
15:18:51 <burn> Thank you mprorock
15:18:55 <burn> q?
15:19:11 <agropper> ... to Rod welcome, especially nice to see a hardware vendor int he group
15:19:40 <mprorock> I am also a member of the WOT WG fyi
15:19:54 <burn> q?
15:20:02 <burn> ack dbuc
15:20:07 <agropper> ... manu continues: WoT has asked us to discuss DIDs during TPAC in late October - there will be a focus on IoT and DID and Rod should consider attending
15:21:49 <burn> ack TallTed
15:21:57 <agropper> dbuc: Expected browser pushback - have to believe that they would challenge something that counters their business model - this is my personal PoV
15:22:37 <justin_r> huge +1 to TallTed 's comments
15:22:41 <agropper> TallTed: Stick to technical arguments -
15:23:26 <Orie> +1 Ted
15:23:28 <agropper> ... the conversation in IG and Rubric is not about DID Core which has the formal objections under discussion today.
15:23:35 <dbuc> If someone's entire business model revolves around continued capture of identity/data the most fundamental level, it's woefully naïve to imagine they won't oppose things that challenge that status quo
15:23:53 <burn> Topic: DID Rubric PRs
15:24:04 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-rubric/pulls
15:24:55 <dbuc> But what would I know, I only worked on a browser for half a decade and on another major browser team - but perhaps others who have worked on 0 browsers would know better
15:25:02 <agropper> burn: The most critical PR has been merged - thank you! Chairs are pleased. Over to Joe: We would like to discuss the environmental impact first
15:25:03 <TallTed> "continued capture of identity/data the most fundamental level" != "owning people".  It's beyond offensive to suggest the latter is the business model, and calling me woefully naive will not go well for you.
15:25:06 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/did-rubric/pull/51
15:25:10 <mprorock> q+
15:25:28 <ivan> subtopic: @pr did-rubric#51
15:25:54 <TallTed> Ad hominem attacks are REALLY inappropriate for these calls and conversations, and violate W3 policies in BIG ways.
15:26:10 <agropper> Joe: In a section that is due to be removed so I pointed to the PR for an example of how to submit criteria. As long as we have all the data fielsds the editors will accept it.
15:26:21 <burn> q?
15:26:31 <TallTed> chairs -- you're attention to the chat of the past 5 minutes or so would be appreciated.
15:26:41 <TallTed> s/you're/your/
15:26:43 <rgrant> q+ to ask about EWP and 10principles
15:26:45 <burn> ack mprorock
15:26:45 <agropper> ... if there is only one example, there will be a Provisional tag - to be removed when there are 3 examples
15:27:25 <burn> q?
15:27:26 <agropper> mprorock" We will be closing out #51 and opening others to add appropriate examples - Thanks for the helpful criteria
15:27:42 <Orie> +1 to PR per criteria
15:27:44 <agropper> Joe: Thanks for noting things into separate PRs
15:27:47 <mprorock> +1 separate PRs very helpful
15:27:48 <burn> ack rgrant
15:27:48 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to ask about EWP and 10principles
15:28:02 <burn> q+
15:29:33 <Orie> Ryan see https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/#registration-process
15:29:41 <agropper> grant: I have a question about principles in the rubric and the W3C vs Chris Allen vs. Kim Cameron  - I would like to propose putting all 30 in - each would be separate pull request - 2 questions: separate and add 30
15:29:45 <manu> q+
15:29:45 <burn> q?
15:29:49 <burn> ack manu
15:29:52 <drummond> q+
15:30:01 <burn> q+ manu
15:30:10 <manu> q- manu
15:30:25 <burn> q+ later
15:30:55 <burn> q- later
15:31:27 <burn> ack drummond
15:31:32 <agropper> Joe: Yes, separate PRs. There's an issue with how to split into sections. On the principles, principle would still be coherent with different criteria
15:32:31 <agropper> drummond: familiaar with Kim Cameron's but some of them don't apply to DIDs. Happy to have separate discussion which ones apply - seek off-line discussion on which apply
15:32:48 <agropper> burn: Conclusions? What does Joe think?
15:33:19 <drummond> @Ryan, if you want to have an offline discussion about which principles would translate into good decentralization criteria, just ping me
15:33:28 <rgrant> I propose that we add the PRs and bong them where not relevant or merge them where duplicates, in discussion.
15:33:30 <agropper> Joe: A single principle might link to five criteria. The devil is in the details. Want to see an issue followed by a PR
15:34:03 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-rubric/pull/47
15:34:10 <ivan> subtopic @pr did-rubric#47
15:34:16 <ivan> s/subtopic/subtopic:/
15:35:06 <agropper> Joe: Let's talk about #47 - the chairs have an opinion but want to include the rest of the group - adds a reference to external publications - Daniel and I would like to avoid the rubric becoming an index
15:35:25 <rgrant> q+ to ask something
15:35:29 <agropper> ... draw the line by citation to only papers mentioned in a crieria
15:35:31 <burn> ack rgrant
15:35:31 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to ask something
15:35:43 <Rod_W> q?
15:36:09 <agropper> rgrant: I have trouble understanding
15:36:12 <burn> ack burn
15:37:04 <agropper> Joe: All of the criteria need an evaluation. If the cited eval is from a published report, then point to author, when, and who paid.
15:38:08 <Orie> q+ to suggest moving the references somewhere else, folks should be able to read reports, independent of if they have been translated to the rubric format.
15:38:19 <agropper> ... the other was about including part of an evaluation in the rubric. Not opposed to citing where the criteria came from.
15:38:22 <burn> ack Orie
15:38:22 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to suggest moving the references somewhere else, folks should be able to read reports, independent of if they have been translated to the rubric format.
15:39:22 <agropper> Orie: Agree with Joe. The rubric has a specific format and don't turn it to an index. Link to independent respects somewhere like we did with the SRI evaluation in the IG.
15:39:38 <burn> q?
15:39:47 <agropper> Joe: That sounds great - to put it in the Implementation Guide.
15:40:09 <agropper> burn: OK on time Joe?
15:40:36 <agropper> Topic: Rubric Issues
15:41:04 <agropper> rgrant: all set with my question
15:41:50 <agropper> burn: Talking about #52 and #53 - please update the two issues to that effect.
15:41:54 <burn> ack burn
15:42:26 <ivan> Topic: Separate discussion issues
15:43:18 <ivan> q+
15:43:23 <agropper> ... on the queue to talk about dbuc conversation: I believe it is ok to state a personal belief to state about business drivers - absolutely to avoid personal attacks on people in the call - stated as chair
15:43:38 <burn> ack ivan
15:43:40 <agropper> dbuc: I understand and should have restated
15:46:04 <burn> q?
15:46:21 <burn> Topic: DID Implementation Guide PRs
15:46:41 <Orie> q+
15:46:48 <burn> ack Orie
15:46:54 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/did-imp-guide/pull/27
15:47:16 <ivan> subtopic: @pr did-imp-guide#27
15:47:53 <rgrant> q+ to say still working on a PR that moves discussion of EWPs to the rubric.
15:48:09 <rgrant> I am still objecting to the current version.
15:48:26 <agropper> Orie: One open PR. Already discussed versions of it. The original text is gone because there has been a lot of great contribution on both sides - Mike did a great job but still have objections but not clear if objecting to the current version of the text and specifically what kind of changes you would like to see
15:48:34 <burn> ack rgrant
15:48:34 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to say still working on a PR that moves discussion of EWPs to the rubric.
15:48:36 <mprorock> +1 need to see concrete recommendations
15:48:57 <TallTed> current version (with all merged suggestions) is always at .../files, e.g., https://github.com/w3c/did-imp-guide/pull/27/files
15:49:00 <mprorock> q+
15:49:05 <burn> ack mprorock
15:49:14 <agropper> rgrant: Working on a PR that moves discussion to the rubric and still objecting to the current version
15:50:17 <rgrant> q+ to say that striving for consensus requires minimizing dissent.
15:50:26 <burn> q+ to agree with mprorock
15:50:50 <Orie> q+ to note that objecting to acknowledging the optinions of wg members in not acceptable.
15:51:06 <manu> q+ to note that we were able to specify two viewpoints in VC implementation guide and that was good, as general strategy.
15:51:20 <rgrant> q+ to say that teach the controversy is not acceptable
15:51:37 <manu> q+ to "there is consensus that there are multiple opinions on this matter and we're documenting those."
15:51:40 <agropper> mprorock: I find it concerning that we can's add objections that reflect the opinion of certain members - not a fan on moving everything to the rubric - but as developer it's important to see all the things I need to consider - if there is clarity from the chairs about the relevancy of certain objections
15:52:12 <burn> ack rgrant
15:52:12 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to say that striving for consensus requires minimizing dissent. and to say that teach the controversy is not acceptable
15:52:13 <agropper> .... the ability for us to say some members feel on way and others another is important.
15:52:13 <rgrant> q+ to remind about the point of having multiple DID methods
15:53:10 <burn> ack burn
15:53:10 <Zakim> burn, you wanted to agree with mprorock
15:53:11 <agropper> rgragnt: We have multiple DID methods and #27 came in as an attack on POW - and this will maximize dissent -
15:54:26 <burn> q?
15:54:28 <burn> ack Orie
15:54:28 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to note that objecting to acknowledging the optinions of wg members in not acceptable.
15:54:35 <agropper> burn: personal opinion: I also see no problem with different viewpoints in the IG - especially for timely topics - even if long-term they belong in the Rubric. Just like privacy is a current interest and should be in the IG - agree with Mike.
15:55:34 <dbuc> If a consideration is marked as subjective and lacking material, empirical proof, I suppose people can note that they personally feel there may be a concern
15:55:42 <mprorock> q+ developer of did methods
15:55:46 <agropper> Orie: as an editor I find it concerning that we might censor the opinions of members in the IG. It's appropriate to address these concerns in multiple places.
15:55:52 <TallTed> "As a DID method implementor (developer, deployer, [other?]), you may want to refer to _xyz_ criteria in the DID Method Evaluation Rubric, and keep those in mind when implementing this/these feature(s)."
15:56:17 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say the push back against consensus is a fundamental problem with this PR
15:56:20 <burn> ack manu
15:56:20 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we were able to specify two viewpoints in VC implementation guide and that was good, as general strategy. and to "there is consensus that there are
15:56:22 <dbuc> I think the issue is with allowing concerns to be posed as "This thing IS a concerning issue", as if the premise of the concern is founded/assumed true
15:56:23 <Zakim> ... multiple opinions on this matter and we're documenting those."
15:56:23 <mprorock> q+ to mention viewpoint as a developer of did methods
15:56:26 <agropper> ... Had a similar disagreement with respect to representations and was well resolved
15:56:36 <burn> q?
15:57:05 <burn> zakim, close the queue
15:57:05 <Zakim> ok, burn, the speaker queue is closed
15:57:42 <Rod_W> q+  newbie question about verification methods
15:58:06 <agropper> manu: remind that we worked on VCs JSON JSON-LD and it's been useful to have the different opinions in the document - it's appropriate to highlight the differences in the IG as well as the rubric - Since it's a note we should document things a much as possible.
15:58:10 <drummond> +1 to the Impl Guide reflecting different opinions on the subject as long as they are objectively stated and not inflammatory.
15:58:21 <burn> ack rgrant
15:58:21 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to remind about the point of having multiple DID methods
15:58:24 <agropper> burn: closing queue
15:58:24 <manu> q?
15:59:52 <dbuc> Orie: I think he's saying the section existing that makes this look like a unique, special concern is what he is objecting to
15:59:57 <agropper> rgrant: Substantive issues are not being addressed. Do we need to keep talking. The same amount of carbon will be released either way and still objecting
16:00:23 <agropper> burn: please look at the current text and make sure it still applies
16:00:27 <mprorock> Note that as a developer who is working on environmental and sustainability issues I would hope to encourage others working in that space to adopt DIDs and realize that we also think of those same concerns
16:00:34 <ivan> current text is at https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/mesur-io/did-imp-guide/pull/27.html#environmental-and-ethical-considerations
16:00:43 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:00:43 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been burn, ivan, shigeya, brent, rgrant, orie, drummond, agropper, manu, justin, Rod_Waltermann, justin_r, Geun-Hyung, cel, TallTed, pam, dpuc,
16:00:47 <Zakim> ... dmitriz, JoeAndrieu, mprorock, dbuc, cypherhippie
16:00:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:00:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/21-did-minutes.html Zakim
16:00:48 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:00:53 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
16:00:58 <mprorock> presnt+
16:01:34 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:01:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items