<burn> scribenick: DavidC
Matt does not believe there are any
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note ongoing bikeshed vote!
<manu> Link to the ongoing bikeshed poll on "Identifier Registry": https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/4635712146112512
Manu gave an update on the poll for terminology of the ID registry
26 (?) people already participated in the poll
<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee
Noone assigned to #253
Noone volunteered, but since it is not important, defer assignment for now
At TPAC advised to be early rather than late
and not to ask for an extension if no CR already published
We need to publish by 15 Jan 2019
Can only publish on Tuesdays and Thursdays (providing it is not a blue moon :-)
We have already had informal reviews from many groups (ex. security)
People do not like giving them a review document just before holidays
But two weeks plus holidays is a good strategy to adopt
which makes it next Tuesday, Dec 11
<stonematt> publishing date milestone calculator: https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/
This explains the pressure for finishing issues and PRs ASAP
If we can document changes after publication, then this is acceptable practice
All above said by stonematt
stonematt: if the format changes due to edits after initial publication, then a new CR will need to be published
<stonematt> what's expected in the "explainer"
<JoeAndrieu> https://github.com/w3ctag/w3ctag.github.io/blob/master/explainers.md
<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention requirements update
JoeAndrieu: use cases team have
been going through their doc since the TPAC
... how does the use case and requirements docs fit into the
timeframe
<tzviya> wide review https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview
JoeAndrieu: use cases doc will make changes to data model due to more requirements on DM
stonematt: the DM CR needs to
show that we have met the requirements
... we need to know how well current DM doc matches use case
requirements
... will talk to JoeAndrieu after this meeting to get
details
kaz: need to check implementability of all the mandatory features in the DM
burn: we have a test suite already
Manu: usually implementations follow the publication of CR and do not preceed it
kaz: CR entering criteria is generating a list of features as an implementation plan document, and CR exit criteria is filling that out as an implementation report with 2 or more implementations for each feature
burn: we need an implementation doc after the CR is published
<TallTed> https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/
TallTed: is struggling to see how current DM fits the initial WG requirements
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that given all of these items, and given our velocity, next week isn't happening (especially given the workshop)
TallTed: a lot of work has gone
into the the current DM, but I believe there is still a lot of
work to do
... too much to go to CR this week or even next week
Manu: everyone is under pressure,
so meeting the suggested schedule will be very difficult
... we could publish on 15 Jan and give 45 days notice
now
... this gives everyone advance notice of our intention, and we
do not anticipate any major changes between now and then
... multiple people are implementing the current DM, so I do
not believe (unlike TallTed) that the current DM is not
implementable
... the working group is working well, the process is something
of a ball and chain
... the current DM is not the final DM, but is it good enough
for v1?
... will the current DM cause any major difficulties to users?
If not, then we should be able to accept the current DM as the
initial version
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to talk about timing and to talk about process confusion and to question the 15 Jan date and to say no new features
burn: the major issues are ZKP
and JWT
... unfortunately these topics were started late in the
cycle
... we will not publish a CR in January if we cannot do a full
review immediately
... up to 6 month extension is relatively easy to get providing
you have already published a CR
... the fact that we already have implementations does not mean
that the current CR is stable
... no new features after CR is published
... so ToU needs to be either resolved ASAP or removed now
<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to say that revisiting/revising demands backward-compatibility, so it really has to be more than "good enough"
TallTed: I do not propose to
formally object, but I am objecting to some of the current spec
details
... v1 should be the minimum required to make VCs usable
... it might be 3 to 5 years before the next version is
chartered
... and it might mean that v2 is incompatible with v1
... so v1 will need to fail elegantly with a v2 system
dezell: I chaired schema WG.
Getting CR published was challenging
... as far as I know producing a ruby when a diamond was
promised is OK
... so if the spec if not finished but is going in the right
direction, then AC should approve this
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to ask Ted for the specific pieces he thinks might need to be left out and to remind people about W3C Notes
burn: if a feature is not solidly agreed, it can still be written up in a non-standard WG Note
<TallTed> +1 WG Notes are good things
burn: so if we cannot fully work
out an advanced feature, then putting it in a non-normative
Note is one way forward
... TallTed can you say which features you think should be
pulled out?
... ToU is one obvious one to me
Sorry. .... > TallTed
<manu> yeah, +1 to that, TallTed
<manu> ... and was what was intended.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask if you want me to start discussion with w3m about possible charter extension (given the current charter expires at the end of March 2019)
kaz: should I start to talk with the W3C Management about requresting an extension?
burn: let's talk about that during the VC Chairs call
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we also have wider review than we think... that we can share with W3M.
burn: requesting an extension is not so we can relax now, but rather so that we can finish what we are doing
manu: we have requested very wide
ranging reviews, which is more than a lot of other WGs
... US Federal government has said it plans to use VCs
<burn> agree with Manu. I mentioned at the beginning that I believe we alreaxdy have very wide review
<burn> And am happy to defend that in a transition call
manu: everything is going well for us, except the W3C timeline process :-(
burn: who in the working group would object to us publising what we have today apart from editorial changes?
<oliver_terbu> :)
manu: does this include the pending PRs?
<stonematt> +1 after ZKP, JWT, ToU disposition
<dlongley> +1 after the PRs are in
<manu> +1 after PRs are in
<JoeAndrieu> as long as the PR goes in, I won't object. I would today. (Btw, David Chadwick approved the PR, so we're just waiting for Manu)
<oliver_terbu> +1 after ZKP, JWT
<dmitriz> +1
+1 after PRs are in
<JoeAndrieu> -1 without PRs
<ken> +1 after ZKP, JWT, (remove or fix) TOU
<TallTed> -0 because I wasn't prepared for this question as such. I have concerns, but a reread after PR application may resolve them.
burn: +1 means I approve publication, -1 I do not
<dezell> +1 with PRs
<manu> ... and we don't have any crazy PRs at this point, IIRC.
<Tim_Tibbals> +1 especially with Added first few examples and text to data model that highlights zkp #265 PR.
<brentz> +1 after ZKP
burn: who cannot attend next week?
<brentz> cannot attend
<ken> cannot attend
<burn> Lots of cannot attends next week, some unminuted
<oliver_terbu> what about rescheduling?
<Tim_Tibbals> move call?
burn: should we cancel next
week?
... if we do not have the current PR editors available next
week then we should cancel
sorry burn-> stonematt
<oliver_terbu> i could also attend the meeting but if the spec editor is not available, it won't be productive
burn: next week's meeting is
cancelled. This gives you an extra hour to work on the PRs
:-)
... the next call will be 18 Dec and this will be the last one
this year
<stonematt> thanks all!
<kaz> [adjourned]