15:01:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:01:34 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/08/28-vcwg-irc
15:01:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #vcwg
15:01:48 <hsano> present+
15:01:54 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
15:02:35 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-08-28: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9bfb4063-230b-4f59-b14c-fbf670b8a51b/20240828T110000/
15:02:37 <TallTed> present+
15:02:41 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
15:02:41 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:02:43 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
15:03:01 <brent> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Weekly Teleconference
15:03:06 <brent> Chair: Brent Zundel
15:03:47 <dmitriz> scribe+
15:03:48 <TallTed> present+ DavidC, manu, brent, hsano, wip,
15:03:50 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
15:03:53 <decentralgabe> present+
15:03:56 <dmitriz> present+
15:04:39 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:04:46 <dmitriz> RobDeFeo: hi my name is Rob De Feo, I'm an implementer, CEO of ?org
15:04:57 <selfissued> present+
15:05:06 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
15:05:10 <decentralgabe> https://www.vidos.id/
15:05:14 <bigbluehat> present+
15:05:20 <dmitriz> s/?org/Vidos.id
15:05:54 <dmitriz> brent: any other introductions?
15:06:15 <dmitriz> brent: ok, let's do agenda review. TPAC first, then wrapping up the VC DM, then bulk of our time on Controller Doc
15:06:15 <manu> q+ to provide updates on work items
15:06:23 <brent> ack manu
15:06:23 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to provide updates on work items
15:06:55 <dmitriz> manu: update on work items, and should discuss - what's our publication plan for TPAC. As in, are we on track for CR2 for TPAC etc
15:07:10 <dmitriz> brent: sounds good, we'll cover that
15:07:17 <brent> Topic: TPAC attendance
15:07:17 <dmitriz> brent: first topic: TPAC attendance
15:07:25 <brent> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18As8BMku1s536XxrJNvKus-08w-bGc1bRqvqzrGPpE0/edit?usp=sharing
15:07:35 <dmitriz> ... a number of folks indicated intention to attend, here's a link to our attendance spreadsheet
15:07:45 <PL-ASU> PL-ASU has joined #vcwg
15:07:52 <dmitriz> ... some expressed interest in a 'pay for your own' group dinner
15:07:57 <dmitriz> ... taking restaurant recommendations; or I'll do some research
15:08:06 <PL-ASU> present+
15:08:40 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: I'll volunteer, to recommend something
15:08:53 <dmitriz> brent: please add dietary restrictions to the spreadsheet
15:09:52 <dmitriz> ... so if you haven't yet, add yourself to that sheet, whether attending in person or remote
15:10:07 <dmitriz> ... there's a 2nd tab on that sheet, please add topics of discussion. we have 3 sessions planned, 2 morning sessions that's just us, and a combined session with security folks
15:10:14 <dmitriz> ... so, not a TON of time, but suggestions welcome
15:10:24 <manu> q+
15:10:28 <brent> Topic: Work Item Status Updates
15:10:32 <brent> ack manu
15:10:52 <dmitriz> manu: good news, core VC data model has had at least 2 editorial passess, full, with changes made
15:11:08 <dmitriz> ... we are down to like 1 editorial issue, still need to fix the respec vc plugin, the cbor stuff
15:11:21 <dmitriz> ... gabe is doing a pass on privacy & security considerations section, thanks gabe. we're in good shape
15:11:29 <dmitriz> ... could potentially cut a CR2 this week or next week
15:11:52 <dmitriz> ... we're in similar shape for VC Data Integrity, eddsa and ecdsa - full editorial passes, with mods and changes incorporated
15:11:58 <dmitriz> ... and we can probably cut CR2s for all those specs as well for TPAC
15:11:59 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
15:12:04 <decentralgabe> q+
15:12:07 <JennieM> present+
15:12:10 <dmitriz> ... brent, there's one issue remaining on VC DI spec, that's the Mattr security issue
15:12:17 <dmitriz> ... what are we planning on doing with that?
15:12:30 <dmitriz> ... other than that, the spec is as done as it's gonna be
15:12:40 <dmitriz> ... so that's 4 specs ready for CR2.
15:12:42 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:13:00 <dmitriz> ... Bitstring Status List could probably get there by TPAC. although Controller Document developments are affecting that
15:13:06 <dmitriz> ... so we'll need to discuss that
15:13:08 <robdefeo> robdefeo has joined #vcwg
15:13:15 <dmitriz> ... but as far as I can see, we're generally ready for CR2
15:13:21 <brent> ack decentralgabe
15:13:23 <dmitriz> brent: gabe, I'll let you talk re VC JOSE/COSE
15:13:53 <dmitriz> decentralgabe: we closed a number of issues in VC JOSE/COSE, still have a couple of issues
15:14:11 <dmitriz> ... we have the media type issue, couple others. I'm actively working on the test suite, reach out if you want to help out
15:14:33 <dmitriz> brent: reminder to folks - the original hoped-for schedule ... and reminder that our current charter is over as of January 2025
15:14:52 <dmitriz> ... so what we're able to do will depend on whether or not our proposed extended charter gets approved or not
15:15:16 <dmitriz> ... the proposed charter is for a couple of years, it lets us wrap up a couple of last in-progress parts. For the most part, the group is to maintain the various specs we published
15:15:21 <dmitriz> ... but that charter hasn't been approved yet
15:15:38 <dmitriz> ... original plan was - we need to publish the Controller Document as a CR draft by the end of August
15:15:43 <dmitriz> ... so, really, this meeting.
15:16:01 <dmitriz> ... it has recently gotten feedback from Google, along with a thorough walkthrough by Mike Jones, so currently a large number of open issues
15:16:07 <dmitriz> ... so we're not ready for CR today
15:16:25 <dmitriz> ... we need to continue working on it beyond today, to get it ready
15:16:33 <dmitriz> ... this only becomes a huge problem if our next charter is not approved
15:16:49 <dmitriz> ... if it IS approved, then we have time to get Controller Doc to CR, push other ones as we need to into CR2 etc
15:17:02 <dmitriz> ... since a number of specs rely on Controller Doc. (vc jose/cose, vc di, vc data model)
15:17:16 <dmitriz> ... if we get that new charter, we have more time. we still need to get it wrapped up as quickly as we can
15:17:18 <selfissued> q+
15:17:19 <dmitriz> ... but we're not sunk
15:17:32 <dmitriz> ... if charter is NOT approved, scope of the Controller Doc needs to drastically change
15:17:37 <dmitriz> ... or if it gets a formal objection
15:17:53 <dmitriz> ... so most likely, we may need to axe the Controller Doc entirely, and return the original sections to jose/cose and vc di
15:18:09 <dmitriz> ... basically revert to how they were as they went into first CR. and proceed with the second CR using that
15:18:22 <dmitriz> ... saying, Controller Doc standalone was a nice idea, but this time around won't work.
15:18:24 <manu> q+
15:18:28 <dmitriz> ... happy to take comments on the queue
15:18:36 <dmitriz> ... but that's the scope of the work for Controller Doc
15:18:41 <brent> ack selfissued
15:18:55 <dmitriz> selfissued: I thought you were going to say that the third spec that relies on controller doc is the new DID spec (DID 1.1 WG)
15:19:12 <dmitriz> brent: that'd be fantastic, and would be a disappointment to the group if Controller Doc has to be axed
15:19:24 <dmitriz> selfissued: I'm optimistic we can wrap it up and get it done pretty quickly
15:19:36 <brent> ack manu
15:19:41 <dmitriz> manu: agree with your analysis, Brent,
15:19:59 <dmitriz> ... I think regardless of where the Controller Doc is, it'd be good to go into a second CR with the other 4 specs
15:20:08 <dmitriz> ... primarily because we're as done with them as we can foresee
15:20:21 <dmitriz> ... and if we go into CR2 and we're not, or the charter gets messed up, the whole timeline changes anyway
15:20:37 <dmitriz> ... it'd be a good signal to send that out to the group and broader community
15:20:49 <dmitriz> ... that it's a new snapshot, we finished a bunch of work, everybody should upgrade
15:21:05 <dmitriz> ... so that's another proposal, basically we publish a CR2 for Data Model, Data Integrity, ecdsa  and eddsa
15:21:12 <dmitriz> ... signaling that we'll keep working on Controller Doc
15:21:30 <dlongley> +1 to Manu
15:21:31 <dmitriz> ... so, signal we're going down that path, and only if charter falls through, we'll do a CR3 (reverting controller doc stuff)
15:21:53 <dmitriz> ... we're almost past the point of no return on that; it'd be highly disruptive to drop controller doc at this time
15:22:06 <dmitriz> brent: agree with that, my only concern about going to CR2 of those docs with Controller Doc in limbo is,
15:22:17 <dmitriz> ... we should clearly indicate that "these sections might change"
15:22:25 <dmitriz> ... lets jump into VC DM issues
15:22:29 <brent> Topic: VCDM Wrap Up
15:22:34 <manu> q+
15:22:36 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Afuture+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:23:09 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1538
15:23:19 <dmitriz> brent: this is Respec VC Plugin not working
15:23:37 <dmitriz> manu: we did a new release, fixed a bug where it wasn't generating all the examples on TR, except for the COSE stuff, that's still broken for some reason
15:23:55 <dmitriz> ... and regardless we'll need to figure out what happens with COSE, both from media type perspective and in terms of detached vs not signatures
15:24:04 <dmitriz> ... it could happen literally the day before we go to CR
15:24:25 <dmitriz> ... once Benjamin gets back, we'll fix the generation of the examples, and once there's closure on jose/cose and detached sigs vs not, we'll put that into the plugin
15:24:48 <dmitriz> brent: sounds like this is tracking not only VC Respec plugin, but it's tracking the completeability of the examples themselves
15:24:51 <dmitriz> manu: that's correct
15:25:00 <dmitriz> brent: I'm fine with that, as long as everyone remembers that it's tracking both of those
15:25:04 <dmitriz> brent: any other comments?
15:25:12 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1551
15:25:19 <manu> q+
15:25:26 <dmitriz> brent: this is 'rename spec registry to 'VC Extensions''
15:25:38 <dmitriz> ... this is in parallel to the DID WG renaming their spec registry to DID Extensions
15:25:53 <dmitriz> ... for us, renaming it to VC Extensions avoids the whole 'registry vs directory' issue
15:25:53 <brent> ack manu
15:26:04 <dmitriz> manu: we made a WG resolution last time, I've made that change
15:26:09 <dmitriz> ... it's at the new URL at github
15:26:21 <dmitriz> ... however, I'll keep this issue open until Ivan makes proper redirects on the w3c TR website
15:26:32 <dmitriz> brent: would anyone be opposed to making this change?
15:26:43 <dmitriz> ... sounds like a straightforward move
15:26:48 <PL-ASU> +1 to this change
15:27:12 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1555
15:27:30 <TallTed> q+
15:27:32 <dmitriz> brent: question - can we change 'Usage Patterns' to 'Patterns of Use' throughout the spec?
15:27:35 <brent> ack TallTed
15:27:57 <TallTed> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=usage+patterns%2Cusage+pattern%2Cpatterns+of+use%2Cpattern+of+use%2Cusage%2Cuse&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3
15:27:59 <dmitriz> TallTed: pretty simple and straightforward, 'use' is preferred over 'usage', it's one of those words that seems more sophisticated, but is not, leads to more confusion
15:28:11 <TallTed> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=usage+patterns%2Cusage+pattern%2Cpatterns+of+use%2Cpattern+of+use%2Cusage&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3
15:28:26 <dmitriz> brent: folks, if you think this is a good idea or not, let us know
15:28:28 <manu> +1 to making the change, it'll be easy
15:28:29 <manu> q+
15:28:32 <dmitriz> ... we also need someone to volunteer to do the work
15:28:35 <brent> ack manu
15:28:43 <dmitriz> manu: I'll do it, should be an easy change
15:29:17 <dmitriz> brent: we also have 1 PR
15:29:19 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
15:29:25 <dmitriz> ... this is gabe's review of the privacy section
15:29:32 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1554
15:29:59 <dmitriz> decentralgabe: this is just privacy section, I'll do security next
15:30:07 <robdefeo7> robdefeo7 has joined #vcwg
15:30:12 <dmitriz> brent: lots of comments, feedback incorporated. I encourage folks to look at the PR
15:30:17 <dmitriz> ... anything else, related to VC DM?
15:30:39 <brent> Topic: Controller Document
15:30:48 <manu> q+
15:30:48 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pulls
15:31:05 <brent> ack manu
15:31:25 <dmitriz> manu: when we get to the issues -- couple things on controller doc, it would be good to understand which changes are editorial vs substantive
15:31:53 <dmitriz> ... we've been telling people, hey we just copied & pasted the text out of DID Core, it's already been approved. but now we're potentially heavily modifying it, so we'll have to be careful there how we communicate it
15:32:00 <dlongley> +1 to trying to keep everything as editorial as possible
15:32:05 <dmitriz> ... if you raise a PR, please make sure to mark it either as Editorial or Substantive/Normative
15:32:19 <selfissued> q+
15:32:52 <brent> ack selfissued
15:33:19 <selfissued> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/41
15:33:31 <dmitriz> selfissued: we should consider merging pr 41, the 'remove proof purpose'
15:33:36 <dmitriz> ... I think comments have been addressed?
15:33:45 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/41
15:34:43 <selfissued> q+
15:34:46 <selfissued> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/43
15:34:49 <brent> ack selfissued
15:35:16 <dmitriz> selfissued: it'd be good to get closure on 43
15:35:20 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/43
15:35:36 <manu> q+
15:35:44 <dmitriz> brent: Ivan is not on the call. it's been open for about a week..
15:35:44 <selfissued> q+
15:35:45 <brent> ack manu
15:36:05 <dmitriz> manu: what this PR does is, it removes 'digest' to all the JSON-LD contexts that can be used in the controller doc
15:37:18 <dmitriz> manu: this PR removes that, without contemplating the side effects. it also removes the section on context injection
15:37:31 <dmitriz> ... so, big -1 on this PR, I don't think Ivan was thinking through the side effects
15:37:53 <dmitriz> ... needs work & discussion
15:37:55 <brent> ack selfissued
15:38:00 <dmitriz> selfissued: if you read Ivan's comment from yesterday, I think he does understand
15:38:15 <dmitriz> ... he makes the point that those who choose JSON-LD, they must choose the exact environment of how they use it
15:38:36 <dlongley> q+ to say this is about contexts used in the controller document itself
15:38:49 <dmitriz> ... this spec is designed to be usable by a number of different audiences/environments. one of them is Data Integrity, one of them is vc jose/cose, and one is the new DID Core spec
15:38:55 <dmitriz> ... and you'd use different contexts in different use cases
15:39:20 <dmitriz> ... one of my issues was - by including the DI context as required, that's not considering the other different use cases
15:39:34 <dmitriz> ... it's inappropriate to list DI-specific stuff in this spec. so, I think Ivan has it exactly right
15:39:34 <brent> ack dlongley
15:39:34 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say this is about contexts used in the controller document itself
15:39:47 <manu> strong -1 for it being merged for all the reasons that have been raised in the existing PR.
15:39:54 <dmitriz> dlongley: the context hashes that are specified in the controller doc are for the context that define the terms used, like key material
15:40:02 <manu> q+
15:40:10 <dmitriz> ... if other people want to use other contexts or use cases, nothing preventing them from doing that
15:40:17 <brent> ack manu
15:40:21 <selfissued> q+
15:40:40 <dmitriz> manu: removing the context -- when you go to implement this stuff, and you don't have the information that's being removed, it creates implementation problems
15:40:47 <dmitriz> ... this completely hobbles jSON-LD implementations
15:40:59 <dmitriz> ... so, objection to the PR in its current state
15:41:16 <dmitriz> selfissued: maybe we should bring it back up when we have Ivan, but responding to Dave,
15:41:35 <dmitriz> ... saying 'if you use JSON-LD, you must use the DI context' -- that's the non even-handed part
15:41:36 <brent> ack selfissued
15:41:53 <dmitriz> brent: i agree that we're likely to make more progress on this PR with Ivan present
15:42:07 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/42
15:42:38 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
15:42:50 <manu> q+
15:42:57 <brent> ack manu
15:43:04 <dmitriz> manu: we did have a discussion related to this in the DID WG
15:43:09 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:43:18 <dmitriz> ... I forget what was said, but I think Joe, you said that you saw a way through this
15:43:29 <dmitriz> ... that you felt it would be a normative change in the DID WG
15:43:48 <brent> q+ to ask a dumb question
15:43:53 <dmitriz> ... I don't quite think we still have alignment, other than that the text in the spec is wrong as it stands
15:43:53 <dmitriz> ... so, there's multiple interpretations of it
15:43:58 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:44:18 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: I think we can get there, we do need a broader conversation. maybe the right thing is for me to identify the places with spec text changes
15:44:30 <dmitriz> ... I do think there's some deep inconsistencies in mental models in the spec, we need to clean that up
15:44:33 <brent> ack brent
15:44:33 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to ask a dumb question
15:44:42 <manu> q+
15:44:44 <dmitriz> brent: why does the Controller Doc spec need to talk about subjects at all?
15:44:47 <brent> ack manu
15:44:58 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to agree. it shouldn't
15:45:01 <dmitriz> manu: we do it today because we have to talk about the thing that's identified with the 'id'
15:45:12 <dmitriz> ... and we've been talking about that as the subject (of a DID or controller doc)
15:45:23 <dmitriz> ... sometimes (and this is debatable), this is the controller (of the controller doc)
15:45:53 <dmitriz> ... but if we call that 'controller', it becomes confusing when there's a controller field
15:46:04 <dmitriz> ... so like we'd have to say "the .id of the document is the controller, unless there is a .controller field, then that overrides"
15:46:29 <dmitriz> ... the Controller Doc was supposed to be just a resource on the web. it's been specialized over the years to talk about key material, but it didn't start out as that
15:47:02 <dmitriz> ... we call a controller doc's .id field 'the subject' because that's what it is, in the graph sense
15:47:12 <dmitriz> brent: so to recap to make sure I understood,
15:47:26 <dmitriz> ... we're using the term 'subject' because there's an .id property (of controller docs)
15:47:42 <manu> q+
15:47:46 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:47:46 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to agree. it shouldn't
15:47:50 <dlongley> the `id` identifies the thing ("the subject") that the other information (e.g., like verification methods) is related to
15:47:53 <dmitriz> manu: yes sort of?
15:47:55 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: I agree, Brent, we should not be mentioning subjects at all.
15:48:02 <dmitriz> ... it's a big source of confusion, we should clean it up
15:48:12 <dmitriz> ... the mapping between an identifier and some real world state, that's what VCs do
15:48:26 <dmitriz> ... what I think the Controller Doc is doing, and I proposed some language in another issue,
15:48:43 <dmitriz> ... is it's using the 'subject' in the RDF sense only, to make statements about the _identifier_
15:49:00 <dmitriz> ... the binding to real world entities, we should nuance out
15:49:11 <dlongley> q+ to say that this isn't about real world, it's about saying that the other JSON keys are used to relate stuff to the thing identified by that identifier -- regardless of what other things it may refer to
15:49:14 <dmitriz> ... that's the domain of the Confidence Method in the VC world, it's not something Controller Doc can address
15:49:15 <dlongley> q-
15:49:19 <brent> ack manu
15:49:27 <dlongley> IMO, this isn't about real world, it's about saying that the other JSON keys are used to relate stuff to the thing identified by that identifier -- regardless of what other things it may refer to
15:49:30 <dmitriz> manu: this is the HTTPRange14 discussion
15:49:36 <dmitriz> ... we don't want to go down that rabbit hole
15:49:41 <JoeAndrieu> q+ it is NOT httprange14
15:49:53 <dmitriz> ... I get what you're saying, and it is a long running debate
15:49:59 <dmitriz> ... on semantics of identifiers
15:50:14 <dmitriz> ... but we've been using this thing consistently with graph terminology, nodes and edges etc,
15:50:33 <dmitriz> ... if we make the Controller Doc special in some way, we'd have to specify it in a bespoke way
15:51:20 <dlongley> `{id: "some_url", "thisIsAPropertyOfWhateverTheIdPropertyRefersTo": "foo"}` <-- i think that's all "subject" is about here ... it's not about a "real world", just binding the identifier to the properties, etc.
15:51:22 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:51:53 <dmitriz> brent: the goal of the issue conversation is to determine - is it triaged correctly, is someone assigned, do they need anything
15:51:58 <dmitriz> ... I'm gonna jump ahead and say - for most of these that are assigned, folks know what needs to be done
15:52:04 <dmitriz> ... we'll begin with number 49
15:52:07 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/49
15:52:22 <dmitriz> brent: this is labeled as 'Editorial, ready for PR'
15:52:27 <manu> q+
15:52:34 <dmitriz> ... which indicates that fix should be straightforward. does anyone disagree with the labeling?
15:52:37 <brent> ack manu
15:52:37 <dmitriz> ... also, need volunteer
15:52:41 <dmitriz> selfissued: I'll do it
15:53:01 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/51
15:53:11 <dmitriz> brent: another editorial, ready for pr labeled issue
15:53:20 <dmitriz> ... straightforward change suggested. need volunteer
15:53:39 <manu> q+
15:53:47 <brent> ack manu
15:53:54 <dmitriz> manu: this was raised by Orie, he just wanted an example
15:54:14 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/53
15:54:30 <dmitriz> brent: same, editorial, ready for pr
15:54:35 <manu> q+
15:54:42 <brent> ack manu
15:54:48 <dmitriz> manu: I'll note we already have this in the spec, we link to the sections
15:55:01 <dmitriz> ... just to clarify - are you asking to just put those links in another column on the table?
15:55:13 <dmitriz> selfissued: yes
15:55:32 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/55
15:55:38 <dmitriz> brent: same as before, editorial, ready for pr
15:55:49 <manu> q+
15:55:53 <dmitriz> ... Mike makes a suggestion for some minor changes
15:55:54 <dmitriz> ... need volunteers.
15:55:57 <dmitriz> manu: I can work on rewording
15:55:58 <brent> ack manu
15:56:01 <selfissued> q+
15:56:20 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/56
15:56:24 <brent> ack selfissued
15:56:42 <dmitriz> selfissued: this is one of a few of such issues, has to do with - is there an actionable way for a naive reader to find the thing
15:56:58 <manu> q+
15:57:04 <brent> ack manu
15:57:08 <dmitriz> manu: yeah, I can raise a PR to do that
15:57:15 <dmitriz> selfissued: thank you
15:57:25 <dmitriz> brent: ok, one more
15:57:27 <selfissued> q+
15:57:28 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/57
15:57:37 <manu> q+
15:57:48 <brent> ack selfissued
15:58:07 <dmitriz> selfissued: a meta point, if manu believes it's ready for PR, and I believe it's ready for PR, I'd like authorization from the WG for the two editors to collaborate & create PRs
15:58:11 <manu> q-
15:58:12 <dmitriz> brent: absolutely, that'd be fantastic
15:58:30 <brent> ack manu
15:58:37 <dmitriz> TallTed: to be clear, those are PRs that are then open for comments, yes?
15:58:40 <dmitriz> brent: yes, of course.
16:00:21 <brent> zakim, who is here?
16:00:21 <Zakim> Present: hsano, TallTed, DavidC, manu, brent, wip, decentralgabe, dmitriz, selfissued, bigbluehat, PL-ASU, JennieM
16:00:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see smccown, JoeAndrieu, JennieM, bigbluehat, selfissued, brent, Zakim, RRSAgent, DavidC, hsano, dmitriz, TallTed, Jem, dlehn, csarven, shigeya, manu, dlongley, cel,
16:00:23 <Zakim> ... rbyers, jyasskin, hadleybeeman, rhiaro, ivan
16:00:32 <brent> present+
16:00:45 <brent> present+ JoeAndrieu
16:01:14 <brent> present+ dlehn
16:01:30 <brent> present+ dlongley
16:01:32 <manu> present+
16:01:44 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
16:01:44 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been hsano, TallTed, DavidC, manu, brent, wip, decentralgabe, dmitriz, selfissued, bigbluehat, PL-ASU, JennieM, JoeAndrieu, dlehn, dlongley
16:01:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/28-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
16:01:56 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:01:56 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
16:02:01 <brent> rrsagent, bye
16:02:01 <RRSAgent> I see no action items