14:54:40 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 14:54:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-vcwg-irc 14:54:47 Zakim has joined #vcwg 14:55:38 chair: RichardV, MattS, DanB 14:56:11 agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jun/0003.html 14:57:11 Varn has joined #vcwg 14:58:42 engelke has joined #vcwg 14:58:46 present+ Dan_Burnett 14:59:06 present+ Richard_Varn 14:59:18 JohnTib has joined #vcwg 14:59:22 present+ John_Tibbetts 14:59:32 present+ Liam_Quin 15:00:00 present+ Gregg_Kellogg 15:01:12 stonematt has joined #vcwg 15:01:22 present+ Manu_Sporny 15:01:26 present+ Dave_Longley 15:01:31 present+ Matt Stone 15:01:33 present+ Chris_Webber 15:01:37 present+ 15:01:40 Colleen has joined #vcwg 15:01:46 +present 15:01:50 ChristopherA has joined #vcwg 15:02:00 rrsagent, make logs public 15:02:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:02:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-vcwg-minutes.html manu 15:03:53 q+ 15:05:09 amigus has joined #vcwg 15:05:10 scribenick: cwebber2 15:05:12 scribe: cwebber2 15:05:14 q? 15:05:18 richard: any changes to the agenda before we start? 15:05:27 ack gkellogg 15:05:53 gkellogg: have a statement before doing the publishing of the use cases, only open issue I know of is the mailing list for the process. We've got the working group mailing list, but we still wanted to do another mailing list? 15:06:03 richard: Okay we'll add that to the agenda, when did you want to add that? 15:06:18 gkellogg: it should go with the discussion of the publication of the document 15:06:20 richard: ok 15:06:28 richard: any other additions/changes for the agenda? 15:06:30 q+ 15:06:32 MattLarson has joined #vcwg 15:06:32 q+ to discuss recruiting... 15:06:37 richard: anyone new to the group who needs an introduction? 15:06:42 s/gkellogg/burn/ 15:06:42 ack TallTed 15:06:51 q? 15:07:05 link to agenda for this week: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jun/0003.html 15:07:40 tallted: Hi, I was just nominated from my AC rep, I have some knowledge of VC... I'm from Virtuoso, which is one of the primere rdf projects. we're also doing things with openid webid and etc 15:07:45 ack manu 15:07:45 manu, you wanted to discuss recruiting... 15:08:04 (don't forget re-introductions) 15:08:19 manu: just a real short addition to the agenda, we may want to discuss recruiting more folks into the VCWG. we want a regular heartbeat on getting new folks into the group. usually you see a rush of people in the first 3 months or so as it becomes official 15:08:35 richard: add that to the standing agenda or? 15:08:39 manu: let's do it at the end 15:08:45 fq? 15:08:47 (we have re-introductions on our standing agenda now at CG) 15:08:48 richard: anything else? 15:08:50 q? 15:09:12 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Matt 15:10:35 Maybe a quick text intro? 15:10:49 zakim, who is here? 15:10:49 Present: Dan_Burnett, Richard_Varn, John_Tibbetts, Liam_Quin, Gregg_Kellogg, Manu_Sporny, Dave_Longley, Matt, Stone, Chris_Webber, TallTed, present 15:10:49 q? 15:10:51 On IRC I see MattLarson, amigus, ChristopherA, Colleen, stonematt, JohnTib, engelke, Varn, Zakim, RRSAgent, burn, gkellogg, TallTed, liam, dlehn, dlongley, robert, manu, cwebber2 15:10:54 present- present 15:11:10 present+ Christopher_Allen 15:11:13 q? 15:11:24 present+ Adam_Migus 15:11:36 q- Matt 15:11:38 q- Stone 15:11:41 present- Matt 15:11:43 present- Stone 15:11:43 stonematt: This is Matt Stone, I'm with Pearson. We're with the ??? division. I'm one of the chairs of the WG, my background goes back 15 years or so as we built a commercial platform built to manage and do data management for professional credentialing, eg in the IT space, nursing, etc. Part of our goal all along was to have professionals share their credentials with employers etc 15:11:48 present+ Matt_Stone 15:11:53 Pearson VUE 15:12:05 richard: our status of publishing, we basically agreed we were going to publish this as a note 15:12:18 richard: so aside from the question about the mailing list, anything else that needs to be covered? 15:12:19 q? 15:12:19 q? 15:12:30 ... anyone have any questions or comments on this agenda item? 15:12:43 ack: liam 15:12:52 present+ 15:13:14 q? 15:13:41 liam: it turned out that we were going to publish it as a FPWD to go to rec to get IPR requirements. but turns out since we're publishing it as a note our IPR requirements don't apply. We won't get any additional protection from that. If we get it in today we can publish on thursday or next week this time 15:13:44 +1 to publishing on Thursday 15:14:09 q+ 15:14:09 richard: let's go back to the mailing list question 15:14:13 q? 15:14:17 ack gkellog 15:14:34 squarfed has joined #vcwg 15:15:26 Liam--can you comment on this as to what W3C would prefer 15:15:34 gkellogg: So, traditionally the working groups have had a few different mailing lists. we have a working group and members mailing list, one is publicly visible by members and one is private. There's also traditionally a third comments mailing list. that's typically how it'd be used for specs like this to solicit input, etc. that's so conversation about comments etc don't bleed in to other group activity. so we could change the 15:15:34 status to vc-comments@w3.org or whatever, but it might not make sense to set that up if the ML doesn't exist 15:15:37 q? 15:15:41 q+ to wonder if we can ask for comments via github? 15:15:50 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:15:50 Present: Dan_Burnett, Richard_Varn, John_Tibbetts, Liam_Quin, Gregg_Kellogg, Manu_Sporny, Dave_Longley, Chris_Webber, TallTed, Christopher_Allen, Adam_Migus, Matt_Stone, Colleen 15:16:10 q- 15:16:13 present+ Charles_Engelke 15:16:18 q? 15:16:26 liam: process requires a mailing list, I'll get one created to the maling list, so we should say you can publish to public-vc-comments, but it's common to say that issues should be filed on github, but if you can't do that for whatever reason you can use the mailing list 15:16:36 liam: that way everyone can see there's a summary for all your issues 15:16:50 q+ 15:16:51 present+ Joe_Andrieu 15:16:53 liam: the one thing you mustn't end up with is a place where you have issues all over the place 15:17:12 present+ Matt_Larson 15:17:12 q? 15:17:16 richard: github will be the official place, can be commented elsewhere, but eventually things need to end up on GH 15:17:21 ack gkellog 15:17:33 present- TallTed 15:17:43 present+ Ted_Thibodeau 15:18:06 gkellogg: in that regard I think adding a sentence to the status of this document indicating that comments can go either to GH or the mailing list would work. We're limited to what we can do there, so it will have to either go to the beginning, the second paragraph, or to the end there. Presuming that's what the group wants to do I'll also add an issue about being able to file issues on github 15:18:22 richard: ok... anyone have an objection to what gkellogg just laid out? 15:18:30 amigus_ has joined #vcwg 15:18:34 richard: looks like no, so gkellogg go ahead with documenting that 15:18:46 Topic: Discuss FPWD for Data Model doc--what issues are blocking finalizing the FPWD and address 15:18:50 q+ can provide background on this item. 15:18:55 richard: anything else on agenda item 2? no? ok let's move on to item 3, which is the data model doc 15:18:58 q+ manu can provide background on this item 15:19:06 q+ to provide background on this item 15:19:42 richard: we looked at this the week before, we agreed this is the main thing we wanted to focus on. There's some that have been out there that have been dated. I think there were like 43, or there was a chunk of them out there, we don't necessarily know what'd keeping them from moving to resolution. so we should find out what to spend time focusing on 15:19:49 q? 15:19:56 q? 15:20:03 ack manu 15:20:03 manu, you wanted to provide background on this item 15:21:16 manu: so it's true we have around 35 issues right now, but I think there are really only 4 to get vc models to FPWD. Good news is I think we've made solid progress on 3 out of 4 over the last week. before diving into each one of those items, what i think I'm asking for is for the group to sign off on integrating those into the spec so we can tackle those before the call next week. for background I've been acting editor for last week 15:21:16 or so trying to get these issues resolved, has been good discussion between a number of us on these threads. 15:21:28 manu: are you talking about the PRs? 15:21:48 manu: at a high level we're checking if there are anything anyone has to comment on the changes on these specs. I'll go through each one, asking if there are objections before we go forward with merging them into the spec 15:21:51 thanks. 15:21:53 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls 15:21:54 manu: yes I'm discussing PRs. 15:22:17 q? 15:22:29 manu: these are the current pull requests active on the document; the fourth I can't really do until the group approves/denies. the fourth requires pulling them into the spec. this will help me make changes to the fourth one 15:22:39 manu: let's go through one at a time 15:22:42 manu: easiest first 15:22:50 Add content to Principle of Minimum Disclosure section. - https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/38 15:23:24 I just sent you the patch 15:23:28 manu: here's the first one, this one's about adding principle of minimal disclosure section to the spec. this is a holdover from the CG days. joe and adam were looking, joe got his comments in, but adam, I don't know what your comments were 15:23:43 manu: adam, maybe if you could... ok, adam sent me the patch I'll take a look 15:23:58 manu: adam / amigus, could you look at the differences in the patch I sent 15:24:01 q+ 15:24:09 ack amigus 15:24:41 amigus: okay, yes, so it's really just word shifting, taking what Joe did and shifting it based on my own meeting. you can look if you like my wording better, and if so merge it, but otherwise there are no functional changes 15:24:50 manu: ok I'll look at the diff and try to integrate, is that ok? 15:24:56 amigus: sounds good 15:25:06 manu: any objections to merging this into the document at this point? 15:25:17 richard: not hearing any objections, so pull that into the spec 15:25:35 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/ 15:25:58 manu: next one... just a quick mention, some of the people on the call may be a bit lost at this point, like why wasn't I notified about the PR. if you weren't notified, you're not subscribed. you can go to this link and click "watch" to get notifications. if you aren't watching you won't get notifications. 15:26:05 manu: ok next up is commenting up webidl section 15:26:10 Comment out WebIDL section - https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/45 15:26:31 manu: so this pull request is about commenting out the webidl section. it doesn't remove it, it just ??? 15:26:54 s/???/prevents it from being displayed/ 15:26:59 manu: one concern is that webidl adds a lot of complexity that we might not want to add at this point in things.... we want to make it clear we're putting out a simple system 15:27:10 turns it into a comment so it is not displayed 15:27:11 q? 15:27:12 manu: second is webidl was throwing errors 15:27:14 q+ 15:28:00 manu: third is people may assume this requires browser integration, and we've also noticed in the web payments group that adding webidl means that browsers start adding strict analysis. we're not saying we're not going to do webidl, just commenting it out, do fpwd, and leaving it for there 15:28:02 ack stonematt 15:28:08 s/for there/for later 15:28:52 stonematt: one question for this in relation to fpwd is one thing we said in previous meetings is even if we include content in the document at this point of publishing we would/should include sections indicating we would follow up in areas. is webidl one of these? are we completely silent on it? 15:29:14 manu: we're presently silent on it, but we could add a marker saying we're contemplating adding it and we're seeking input 15:29:19 richard: any preference on which we do 15:29:22 q+ 15:29:26 manu: I think it's reasonable to add an issue marker 15:29:31 ack dlongley 15:29:44 dlongley: I'm also fine with an issue marker, we could make it more general making sure we have a number of representations 15:30:01 richard: ok proposal is to add issue marker saying we're considering other... what's the wording? 15:30:07 manu: editors will work on the wording don't worry 15:30:26 richard: ok including but not limited to webidl, other things will be looked at... anyone object to this resolution to pull request 45? 15:30:41 ACTION: editors to add issue marker for new sections that might be added to the spec such as webidl 15:30:46 richard: hearing none we'll have that as a resolution with editors adding that as the issue marker 15:30:50 Added this comment: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/45#issuecomment-306523870 15:30:50 q? 15:31:16 Refactor some uses of "identity" to "entity" - https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/49 15:31:49 Zakim: who's on the phone? 15:31:53 manu: ok so, last one is Harriet's one in this group, but I think Joe and I think... this pull request has to do with refactor moving "identity" to "entity". to be clear it's not "we should never mention identity", it's a terminology issue and how we use it in the spec, about how to align 15:31:58 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:31:58 Present: Dan_Burnett, Richard_Varn, John_Tibbetts, Liam_Quin, Gregg_Kellogg, Manu_Sporny, Dave_Longley, Chris_Webber, Christopher_Allen, Adam_Migus, Matt_Stone, Colleen, 15:32:01 ... Charles_Engelke, Joe_Andrieu, Matt_Larson, Ted_Thibodeau 15:32:04 manu: joe started looking at commenting on that 15:33:01 Harriest, not Harriet's meaning troublesome 15:33:17 manu: so we use that as a way to clean up the glossary. to be clear the glossary includes more terms than we pull in, so the glossary has a number of terms we won't include when we publish, so we don't need to painstakingly pour over those... that said joe and I went back and forth on a number of definitions, I think I pulled in all Joe's suggestions, I think there's been more alignment on what we do and don't mean 15:33:42 manu: Joe, I'd like to hear what we should do before we pull this in? 15:33:46 q+ Joe 15:33:48 ack Joe 15:33:51 ack Joe 15:34:40 q+ to discuss removing "identity" altogether... and "identity provider". 15:34:51 joe: so I really like the changes from identity profile -> entity profile, all feels good. two outstanding things maybe we should iterate on more. I'd like to remove identity altogether. there's the term "identity provider" and that's out in the field and I don't mind that so much, but I don't like the definition itself and I'd like to avoid the whole debate over what's identity. might be a way to sidestep that rathole 15:35:18 Drummond has joined #vcwg 15:35:18 joe: I've been involved in this conversation with this group for a year now. I only now realized we discuss subjects, statements, claims, those are different terms than what's in RDF 15:35:32 q+ 15:35:32 I would like to see that added as an issue. 15:35:34 joe: not sure what the right steps are, but we should look at how we're working with people who would see those 15:35:35 q+ 15:35:42 q? 15:35:55 ChristopherA - just add it as an issue in Github :) 15:36:12 tensor5 has joined #vcwg 15:36:24 ack manu 15:36:24 manu, you wanted to discuss removing "identity" altogether... and "identity provider". 15:36:25 joe: so in RDF you can think of it at triples/quads, but a given rdf statement is a triple, subject predicate object, so we have definitions that a claim is a statment about a subject, but for example 7 different triples, so colloquially it's a ??? 15:36:27 q- 15:36:29 q? 15:36:41 q? 15:36:59 I think this discussion is no longer minor and has moved beyond the original PR 15:37:16 manu: joe mentioned two things, removing identity altogether, and the identity-provider term. there are a few examples of identity that would be hard to revove. we could certainly remove from the terminology, but I don't think we pull in identity provider into the... 15:37:26 joe: the terms and glossary has it as an entry 15:37:34 Not to say that it is unimportant, just that an attempt to get quick approval in this call is not appropriate. 15:37:56 in the statement "Jane likes cats", "Jane" is the RDF subject, "likes" is the RDF predicate, and "cats" is the RDF object 15:38:03 manu: yes but not all of those are pulled into the spec, which achieves partially what you want to achieve. the other thing aboud identity-provider is it's a holdover from the spec of 3 or 4 years ago. then we switched to "credential repository" but I don't think we ever finalized what term that is 15:38:07 subject object predicate triplet is standard RDL but we have used them in combination so that we do not use subject in the same way 15:38:20 manu: in any case I don't think it shows up in the spec, it depends on how much of the ecosystem we want to describe 15:38:28 manu: this will show up in the fourth and final part of the spec 15:38:31 q+ to say that we are going beyond original PR 15:38:57 q+ to say that this PR and discussion may not be baked enough yet. 15:38:58 manu: all that said, more or less what you said is more or less achievable except maybe I heard some pushback on removal of it entirely because may push the wrong message 15:39:12 q? 15:39:18 in our data model, we have an "entity credential" (an RDF subject) that makes a "claim" (RDF predicate) about an entity (RDF object) 15:39:25 the entity is the "Subject" in our claims terminology. 15:39:30 manu: what we may want to do is put an issue marker in the spec that says "yes we know VC can be used for identity, the group is currently set to define it properly so that it's not jabbing other groups in the eye effectively" 15:39:50 manu: so we may want to put an issue marker in there, to make it clear we're aware and are considering it, leave it at that for FPWD 15:40:07 manu: on last item we mentioned, I'd like to stay pretty far away from mentioning rdf concepts 15:40:40 ack gkellog 15:40:42 +1 RDF mapping is secondary 15:40:45 manu: talking about low-level technical bits of rdf will impact the group negatively in a bad away... I'd rather not mention RDF but talk about it in a bit more high level sense in the data model. that may confuse people who know about RDF but hopefully they know how to map 15:41:17 gkellogg: my concern about subject and statement was to say people may be confused... but these are such broad terms that anyone needs to consider the context in which they're defined 15:42:19 gkellogg: we do define what a subject is, I think that makes it unambiguous. we don't define object, statement only used in describing a claim, no other discussion of statment, the claim is a statement in our case. if we use terms we define, they should come from our terminology. if we use terms defined elsewhere, we can define it in our terminology and cite the original definition 15:42:31 +1 to everything gkellogg just said 15:42:35 ack burn 15:42:35 burn, you wanted to say that we are going beyond original PR and to say that this PR and discussion may not be baked enough yet. 15:42:40 gkellogg: eg we could reference the rdf concepts, which maybe we shouldn't do but we can do a few things to make sure the terms are clear 15:42:46 +1 to gregg as well 15:43:02 q? 15:43:18 +1 to focus on identity => entity conversion 15:43:22 q+ to ask Joe what changes he wants to see before we pull in the PR 15:43:28 q? 15:43:28 +1 to separate concerns 15:43:31 burn: mainly I wanted to point out that our discussion about subject and etc is going beyond the original PR. I'm uncomfortable going beyond the original scope of the PR, which is about identity and entity. the other topic about subject is important but should show up as a separate issue 15:43:35 ack manu 15:43:35 manu, you wanted to ask Joe what changes he wants to see before we pull in the PR 15:43:42 q? 15:43:47 q+ 15:43:52 manu: just to circle back I need a list of edits I need to make to this PR before we pull it in, so joe what changes do you want to have made before we pull this in 15:43:53 ack Joe 15:44:21 ack stonematt 15:44:27 joe: if we're going to keep identity as an entry, let's have another definition... I can propose something... I'll try to get something tonight. It may be too complicated but let's try to evaluate it 15:44:56 joe: on the topic of the subject-predicate I agree it's not part of this PR and I think maybe it's confusing and that's just part of how we have to do it. that's the only issue I'd say hey maybe we have to work on 15:45:14 manu: there's one other thing about referencing multiple subjects, typically it's about one subject but usually multiple subjects 15:45:26 +1 subject/predicate/object terminology SHOULD be brought into sync, not conflict, with RDF 15:45:31 joe: I think that's a non-issue. I created that issue as in terms of how we define subject 15:45:37 q+ 15:45:38 joe: it's tautological, the claim is not a subject 15:45:50 manu: I don't know if that's true... I think you're right but not for the reasons you outlined 15:46:07 dlongley: I think that's likely a corner case. I think we should put an issue marker in the spec 15:46:32 manu: I think ok, we'll put an issue marker bout not doing SPO, an issue marker about multiple ??? and thn we're done 15:46:57 stonematt: no objections, I pause before I ask the next question 15:47:13 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/49#issuecomment-306529073 15:47:43 Make the following changes: 15:47:43 If we keep identity as an entry, different definition. 15:47:43 Do not do anything w/ subject/predicate/object. 15:47:43 Put issue marker about multiple subjects in claims. 15:48:00 richard: any other comments/objections on 49? 15:48:59 q+ to note fourth and final item to discuss. 15:49:06 stonematt: my question is about other items related to the FPWD as we're closing in on PRs... I notice of the issues you have open, none are tagged with FPWD or labeled with milestone 15:49:09 q- 15:49:12 q+ 15:49:12 stonematt: just wanted to validate that's correct 15:49:22 ack manu 15:49:22 manu, you wanted to note fourth and final item to discuss. 15:49:24 manu: they are tagged if you look at the PRs 15:49:30 manu: oh I see what you're changing 15:49:39 stonematt: of the open issues we have tags for privacy, security, etc 15:49:45 q? 15:49:48 stonematt: are any of these worth discussing before we go to FPWD? 15:49:55 q+ to discuss fourth and final item. 15:50:17 ack burn 15:50:18 dlongley: I went and marked all of them with the FPWD milestone, I agree that's the better way to do it 15:50:24 ack many 15:50:29 s/dlongley/burn 15:50:32 ack manu 15:50:32 manu, you wanted to discuss fourth and final item. 15:50:34 ack manu 15:51:19 q? 15:52:01 manu: there's only one remaining thing, which is cleanup of the language to make it easy to read, put in diagrams of the issues etc, where we expect things to flow, so that's the fourth and final item to get the terminology down so it's easy for people to read, esp people who are not involved, get a sense of the ecosystem we're designing etc. that will come in a separate PR... probably can't land it till saturday/sunday, which means 15:52:01 next monday people can review. I think that's the last thing we wanted to do before going to FPWD on the data model spec 15:52:18 stonematt: that gives me an idea of what's next 15:52:19 q? 15:52:28 s/next monday/manu: next monday/ 15:52:39 stonematt: so we expect with these PRs that we go through a few rounds before we go to the final... 15:52:54 manu: yes, ??? a few weeks from now, with PR in by next tuesday 15:53:16 q+ 15:53:20 q+ At the end of the meeting, can the chairs remind the members here of the Credentials Community meeting happening immediately after at 12pm ET 9am PT. (I have to leave) 15:53:22 ack burn 15:53:41 absolutely! :) 15:53:43 +1 ChristopherA 15:53:57 q+ ChristopherA to ask the chairs remind the members here of the Credentials Community meeting happening immediately after at 12pm ET 9am PT. (I have to leave) 15:54:02 q? 15:54:03 burn: yes all I'm going to say is to remind people that manu is not the only one who can say what they'd like to see in the FPWD. these are just items they brought up. if there's anything others want to see before putting it in the FPWD please file and label it as a FPWD issue 15:54:16 ack ChristopherA 15:54:16 ChristopherA, you wanted to ask the chairs remind the members here of the Credentials Community meeting happening immediately after at 12pm ET 9am PT. (I have to leave) 15:54:44 ChristopherA: I don't want to add to the expanding agenda, but want to remind that the community meeting is right after. I have to go to that meeting now! so that was basically it. 15:54:47 Agenda and dial in info for CG meeting after this meeting: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Jun/0058.html 15:55:12 zakim, who is on the call? 15:55:12 Present: Dan_Burnett, Richard_Varn, John_Tibbetts, Liam_Quin, Gregg_Kellogg, Manu_Sporny, Dave_Longley, Chris_Webber, Christopher_Allen, Adam_Migus, Matt_Stone, Colleen, 15:55:15 ... Charles_Engelke, Joe_Andrieu, Matt_Larson, Ted_Thibodeau 15:55:21 present+ Drummond_Reed 15:55:25 richard: well we finished the one we wanted to spend most of the time on, which is good, we don't have time to review the issues for data model document 15:55:45 richard: any other suggestions? 15:56:02 richard: for next week's agenda? 15:56:06 q? 15:56:08 q+ 15:56:25 ack burn 15:56:25 stonematt: I like the idea of re-introducing people over the next few weeks 15:56:44 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:56:44 I like that idea - I'm getting re-engaged in VC work 15:56:44 Present: Dan_Burnett, Richard_Varn, John_Tibbetts, Liam_Quin, Gregg_Kellogg, Manu_Sporny, Dave_Longley, Chris_Webber, Christopher_Allen, Adam_Migus, Matt_Stone, Colleen, 15:56:48 ... Charles_Engelke, Joe_Andrieu, Matt_Larson, Ted_Thibodeau, Drummond_Reed 15:57:02 present Drummond Reed 15:57:13 burn: just a reminder, I'm putting the Zakim request. it lists everyone who's present. if you don't see yourself there, please do "present+ ". please remember to do that before the call ends. 15:57:19 burn: if you already show up you don't have to 15:57:29 s/present Drummond Reed// 15:58:15 I spent the first 30 minutes trying to figure out how to make myself present, and I've done a lot of time on community group type things. the accessibility is near zero 15:58:17 IRC is not intuitive 15:58:24 +1 to everything Drummond just said. 15:58:45 richard: I appreciate that comment, chairs will take this on as a step 15:58:54 s/I spent the first/Drummond: I spent the first/ 15:59:16 Drummond: there's also no information, most groups publish a page of information on how to join a call 15:59:43 burn: the agenda email each week actually says here's how you connect for WebEx, etc 16:00:22 Sorry if I'm venting about how hard it was to join - it may be that I'm in fact not on the right mailing list. My bad. 16:00:23 ChristopherA: the private email you link to should have the URL which is the full url including the password etc. there is a way to do that with WebEx 16:00:35 Drummond, you are right. 16:00:42 +1 to having a 1-click join from ChristopherA when on the member archive 16:00:54 As Richard says, some of the indirection is due to W3C policy to avoid abuse 16:00:55 TallTed: there is a double-redirect right now; the password email pointer in the agenda goes to a public message which links to the private message 16:00:56 richard: there's a security issue of not releasing the password, but we have to be careful 16:01:15 richard: meeting over, thanks everyone 16:01:18 bye all 16:03:18 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:03:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-vcwg-minutes.html burn 16:04:12 scribe: cwebber2 16:04:21 rrasgent, draft minutes 16:04:42 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:04:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-vcwg-minutes.html burn 16:05:15 zakim, this was vcwg 16:05:15 I don't understand 'this was vcwg', burn 16:05:37 Title: Verifiable Claims Working Group 16:05:42 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:05:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-vcwg-minutes.html burn 16:06:06 zakim, who's on the phone? 16:06:07 Present: Dan_Burnett, Richard_Varn, John_Tibbetts, Liam_Quin, Gregg_Kellogg, Manu_Sporny, Dave_Longley, Chris_Webber, Christopher_Allen, Adam_Migus, Matt_Stone, Colleen, 16:06:07 ... Charles_Engelke, Joe_Andrieu, Matt_Larson, Ted_Thibodeau, Drummond_Reed 16:06:24 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:06:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-vcwg-minutes.html burn 16:09:08 Meeting: Verifiable Claims Working Group 16:09:53 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:09:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-vcwg-minutes.html burn 16:13:05 done 16:32:00 zakim, bye 16:32:00 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Dan_Burnett, Richard_Varn, John_Tibbetts, Liam_Quin, Gregg_Kellogg, Manu_Sporny, Dave_Longley, Matt, Stone, Chris_Webber, 16:32:00 Zakim has left #vcwg 16:32:06 rrsagent, bye 16:32:06 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-vcwg-actions.rdf : 16:32:06 ACTION: editors to add issue marker for new sections that might be added to the spec such as webidl [1] 16:32:06 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/06-vcwg-irc#T15-30-41